Expansion Cell Incremental Impact Assessment - McDougall Landfill Site

municipalityofmcdougall

DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN

McDOUGALL LANDFILL SITE

MUNICIPALITY OF McDOUGALL, ONTARIO

OCTOBER 2006

REF. NO. 31807 (13)

This report is printed on recycled paper.

Worldwide Engineering, Environmental, Construction, and IT Services


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................1

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................2

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF REPORT ...................................................................................4

1.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT .......................................................4

1.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT.......................................................5

1.3.3 ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT ...........................................................5

1.3.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION................................................................................5

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION...............................................................................6

1.5 OTHER REPORTS...............................................................................................7

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................................8

2.1 OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGINATION..................................................................8

2.2 ZONING DESIGINATION ................................................................................8

2.3 SUMMARY OF SITE SETTING.........................................................................8

2.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY....................................................................................................9

2.3.2 SURFACE WATER..............................................................................................9

2.3.3 SITE GEOLOGY.................................................................................................10

2.3.3.1 OVERBURDEN GEOLOGY.............................................................................10

2.3.3.2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY .....................................................................................10

2.3.4 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY..................................................................................11

2.4 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................12

2.5 REFUSE DENSITY.............................................................................................13

2.6 POPULATION FORECAST .............................................................................13

2.7 WASTE DIVERSION ACTIVITIES .................................................................13

2.8 ALLOWABLE FILL RATE ...............................................................................15

2.9 END USE ............................................................................................................15

2.10 DESIGN CONCEPT ..........................................................................................16

3.0 SITE DESIGN.........................................................................................................................19

3.1 EXPANSION AREA..........................................................................................19

3.2 BUFFER ZONES ................................................................................................19

3.3 BASE DESIGN ...................................................................................................20

3.4 FINAL CONTOURS..........................................................................................22

3.5 DAILY COVER ..................................................................................................23

3.6 INTERIM COVER..............................................................................................24

4.0 LANDFILL VOLUMES ........................................................................................................25

4.1 GENERAL ..........................................................................................................25

4.2 SITE VOLUMES.................................................................................................25

4.2.1 TOTAL SITE VOLUME ....................................................................................25

4.2.2 VOLUME LANDFILL.......................................................................................25

4.2.3 REFUSE VOLUME ............................................................................................26

4.3 SOIL VOLUME ..................................................................................................26

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


4.3.1 SOIL REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................26

4.3.2 SOIL AVAILABILITY AND BALANCE ........................................................27

5.0 SITE LIFE................................................................................................................................29

6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................................30

7.0 LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................32

7.1 IMPACTED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT.......................................32

7.1.1 RESIDUAL GROUNDWATER IMPACT.......................................................32

7.1.2 ON-SITE IRON REDUCTION MEASURES ..................................................32

7.2 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL.........................................33

7.2.1 EXISTING LEACHATE CONTROLS .............................................................33

7.2.2 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM – EXPANSION CELL .....................33

7.2.3 LEACHATE HANDLING – EXPANSION CELL.........................................34

7.2.4 LEACHATE DISPOSAL ...................................................................................34

7.2.5 LONG-TERM LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION

(ON-SITE LEACHATE TREATMENT)..........................................................34

7.2.6 LEACHATE GENERATION............................................................................35

7.2.7 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................36

7.3 EVALUATION OF SITE PERFORMANCE...................................................37

7.3.1 TRIGGER LEVEL ASSESSMENT PLAN .......................................................37

7.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES ........................................................................38

7.4.1 GROUNDWATER CONTINGENCY PLANS...............................................39

7.4.2 LEACHATE CONTROL CONTINGENCY ...................................................39

7.5 CONTAMINATING LIFE SPAN....................................................................39

8.0 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................41

8.1 GENERAL ..........................................................................................................41

8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................42

8.2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS ..............................................................42

8.3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS .............................................................................43

8.3.1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGIC MODEL.................................43

8.3.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM...........................44

8.3.2.1 EXPANSION CELL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .............................44

8.3.2.2 EXISTING LANDFILL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ........................45

8.3.2.3 INFILTRATION BASINS .................................................................................45

8.3.2.4 PRE-TREATMENT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF ......................................45

8.3.2.5 INFLOW AND OVERFLOW ...........................................................................46

8.3.2.6 INFILTRATION BASIN MAINTENANCE ...................................................46

8.3.2.7 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ..........................................47

8.4 FLOOD RISK......................................................................................................47

8.5 WATER QUANTITY.........................................................................................48

8.6 WATER QUALITY............................................................................................48

8.7 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................48

9.0 LANDFILL GAS ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................50

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


9.1 LANDFILL GAS ASSESSMENT .....................................................................50

9.1.1 LANDFILL GAS ................................................................................................50

9.1.2 LANDFILL GAS PRODUCTION....................................................................51

9.1.3 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF LANDFILL GAS.....................................52

9.1.3.1 ESTIMATED NMOC EMISSION RATES ......................................................53

9.1.3.2 ODOURS.............................................................................................................53

9.1.4 SUBSURFACE MIGRATION OF LANDFILL GAS......................................53

9.2 LANDFILL GAS MANAGMENT...................................................................54

9.2.1 LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION.....................................................................54

9.2.2 LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION MONITORING...........................................55

9.2.3 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS .................................................................................55

9.2.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES ........................................................................56

9.2.5 CONTAMINATING LIFE SPAN....................................................................57

10.0 SITE FACILITIES...................................................................................................................58

10.1 SITE FENCING ..................................................................................................58

10.2 GATE HOUSE....................................................................................................58

10.3 WEIGH SCALE..................................................................................................58

10.4 MATERIAL RECYCING AREA ......................................................................58

10.5 SITE ROADS ......................................................................................................59

10.6 SIGNS..................................................................................................................60

10.7 SITE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................60

10.8 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING.............................................................61

11.0 SITE OPERATION ................................................................................................................62

11.1 SITE SUPERVISION..........................................................................................62

11.2 HOURS OF OPERATION ................................................................................62

11.3 SITE SECURITY.................................................................................................62

11.4 INSPECTION, COMPLAINTS, AND RECORD KEEPING ........................63

11.5 DUST CONTROL ..............................................................................................63

11.6 LITTER CONTROL ...........................................................................................64

11.7 NOISE CONTROL.............................................................................................64

11.8 ODOUR CONTROL..........................................................................................65

11.9 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND IMPACT.............................................................66

11.10 VECTOR AND VERMIN CONTROL.............................................................67

11.11 SCAVENGING ..................................................................................................67

11.12 WINTER AND WET WEATHER OPERATION...........................................67

11.13 RECEIPT, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS .........................68

11.14 CLEAN OR INERT FILL ACCEPTANCE......................................................70

12.0 SITE MONITORING.............................................................................................................71

12.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING................................................................71

12.2 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROTOCOLS ............................................71

12.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM.................71

12.4 ANNUAL MONITORING AND PROGRESS REPORTING.......................72

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................75

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


LIST OF FIGURES

(Following Text)

FIGURE 1.1

FIGURE 2.1

FIGURE 2.2

FIGURE 2.3

FIGURE 7.1

FIGURE 8.1

FIGURE 8.2

FIGURE 9.1

FIGURE 9.2

FIGURE 9.3

FIGURE 12.1

SITE LOCATION MAP

EXISTING SURFACE WATER CATCHMENT AREAS

BEDROCK CONTOURS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW

SITE WATER FLOW

CONCEPTUAL IRON REDUCTION TREATMENT SYSTEM PLAN

PROPOSED SURFACE WATER CATCHMENT AREAS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAINAGE BASIN FLOW DIAGRAM

LFG PRODUCTION – EXISTING LANDFILL

LFG PRODUCTION – PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

LFG PRODUCTION – CUMULATIVE LFG PRODUCTION

PROPOSED LANDFILL MONITORING LOCATIONS

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


LIST OF TABLES

(Following Text)

TABLE 4.1

TABLE 7.1

TABLE 7.2

TABLE 7.3

TABLE 8.1

TABLE 8.2

TABLE 8.3

TABLE 8.4

TABLE 8.5

TABLE 9.1

TABLE 9.2

TABLE 9.3

TABLE 12.1

TABLE 12.2

SOIL AVAILABILITY AND BALANCE

LEACHATE QUALITY DATA COMPARISON

TRIGGER LEVEL ASSESSMENT COMPLIANCE LOCATIONS

TRIGGER LEVEL PARAMETERS

SWMP – DESIGN STORM PARAMETERS

SWMP – HYDROLOGIC MODELLING PARAMETERS

SWMP – SUMMARY OF RUNOFF PEAK FLOWS

SWMP – SUMMARY OF RUNOFF VOLUMES

SWMP – CHANNEL PARAMETERS

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM NMOC EMISSION RATES – EXISTING

LANDFILL

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM NMOC EMISSION RATES – PROPOSED

LANDFILL

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM NMOC EMISSION RATES – EXISTING AND

PROPOSED LANDFILL

SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY OF MONITORING PARAMETERS

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A1

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL (WASTE DISPOSAL) NO. A522101 AND

NOTICES OF AMENDMENTS

APPENDIX A2 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL (SEWAGE) NO. 3-0178-94-006

APPENDIX B EA APPROVAL - ORDER IN COUNCIL 523/2006

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX L

LEGAL PLANS

PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL & QUALITY

ASSURANCE PLAN

TECHNICAL DESIGN BRIEF – IRON REDUCTION

TREATMENT SYSTEM

SWMP MODEL

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

LANDFILL COMPLAINT FORM

NOISE ASSESSMENT

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROTOCOLS

DRAWINGS

DRAWING NO. 0

COVER SHEET

DRAWING NO. C-01 EXISTING CONDITIONS – NOVEMBER 2004

DRAWING NO. C-02

DRAWING NO. C-03

DRAWING NO. C-04

DRAWING NO. C-05

DRAWING NO. C-06

LIMITS OF SITE AND CONTAMINANT

ATTENUATION ZONE

PROPOSED FINAL CONTOURS

PROPOSED BASE CONTOURS

PROPOSED LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

PROPOSED LANDFILL SEQUENCING

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


DRAWING NO. C-07

PROPOSED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

DRAWING NO. C-08 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DETAILS 1

DRAWING NO. C-09 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DETAILS 2

DRAWING NO. C-10

DRAWING NO. C-11

TYPICAL SECTIONS

MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS

31807(13) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality

of McDougall has prepared the following Design and Operations Plan (D&O) in support

of the Municipal Landfill Expansion at the McDougall Landfill Site, Township of

McDougall, Ontario.

The McDougall Landfill Site (Site) is a municipal waste management facility owned by

the Corporation of the Municipality of McDougall. The Site is located on Part Lots 11

and 12, Concession 4 in the Township of McDougall, District of Parry Sound.

The Site serves as a solid non-hazardous waste disposal facility for the Municipality of

McDougall, and surrounding municipalities. The Site service area includes Municipality

of McDougall, Town of Parry Sound, Township of the Archipelago, Township of Seguin,

Township of McKeller, and Township of Carling.

Landfilling at the Site commenced in 1976. The Site was originally owned and operated

by a private company. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) required that the

Municipality of McDougall (Municipality) assume ownership of the Site and

subsequently issued an Emergency C of A No. A522101 to the Municipality on

September 25, 1989, which came into force on October 1, 1989. This C of A provided for

the continued operation of the Site for a period of 2 years, ending September 28, 1991,

and was subsequently extended to November 30, 1991. The MOE further amended the

C of A on November 29, 1991, to allow for continued use of the Site up to the Site’s

originally approved capacity and a requirement for the submission of a plan to construct

a containment cell and move the existing landfilled waste to the containment cell. The

November 29, 1991 C of A amendment revoked all previous C of A’s issued for the Site.

The November 29, 1991 C of A (Appendix A) has been amended as follows:

• on February 21, 1992, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to provide additional

time to submit the required plan;

• on June 29, 1992, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to provide additional

time to submit the required plan;

• on January 25, 1993, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to include conditions

detailing the leachate recovery and recirculation program, the waste excavation and

screening procedure, and requiring a long-term leachate disposal strategy;

31807 (13) 1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


• on April 21, 1994, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to include conditions

detailing the design of the containment cell, and the Site closure date (June 30, 2000);

• on November 21, 1996, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to include

conditions detailing groundwater and surface water monitoring programs;

• on December 23, 1996, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to allow continued

use of the Site to the revised final contours; and

• on November 16, 2005, a Notice was issued amending the C of A to permit

landfilling on an emergency basis up to a revised Site capacity of 329,000 cubic

metres (m 3 ) and to include a requirement for the submission of a progress report

with respect to the long-term disposal options by December 31, 2006.

On March 1, 2006, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment gave approval of an

Environmental Assessment of the proposed expansion of the McDougall Landfill Site by

Order in Council 523/2006. This approval enables the Municipality to proceed with the

preparation of the technical studies and application under the Environment Protection

Act (EPA) for the expansion of the Landfill Site. The Design and Operations Plan (D&O)

presented herein is one of the technical documents prepared in support of the EPA

Application.

A copy of the Order in Council 523/2006 is provided in Appendix B.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The McDougall Landfill Site is currently approved for the use and operation of a

7.0 hectare municipal waste disposal Landfill within a total Site area of 77.56 hectares.

The Site is located on Part Lots 11 and 12, Concession 4 in the Township of McDougall,

District of Parry Sound and consist of Part 1 as per Registered Plan 150379, Parts 1 and 2

as per Registered Plan 42R-2573 and Parts 1 and 4 as per Registered Plan 42R-13880. A

copy of the legal plans are provided in Appendix C. Additionally, the contaminate

attenuation zone (CAZ) extends easterly onto the Oxley Wet Land. The CAZ is

approximately 56.65 ha. in size.

The Site was originally designed and operated as a natural attenuation landfill. In 1994,

the landfill was mined and the waste remaining after exhumation was placed in a lined

landfill with a footprint of approximately 3.3 hectares and approved capacity of

312,710 m 3 . This approved capacity was increased to 329,600 m 3 through the

development of a Short-term Landfill Capacity Increase, as detailed in CRA October

2005 Report and approved in a C of A Amendment dated November 2005. With the

31807 (13) 2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Short-term Landfill Capacity Increase, the existing Landfill is expected to reach capacity

by January 2008.

In March 2006, the Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of the Site

was approved. This approval sought expansion of the landfill capacity by

approximately 678,738 m 3 .

Concurrent and independent of approvals for expansion of the Landfill footprint and

increased waste capacity, a Compliance Plan was developed for the Site in May 2005 to

continue to address historical environmental concerns with the existing Site observed

prior to ownership by the Municipality in 1989. These concerns are primarily related to

stockpiled fines generated when the waste was mined and exhumed as a remedial

activity by the Municipality in 1994, performance of the purge well to address residual

groundwater impacts, and surface water and groundwater compliance locations and

monitoring program.

In May 2006, the final Compliance Plan Summary Report (Compliance Plan) prepared

by CRA was submitted to MOE. The Compliance Plan addressed the environmental

concerns at the Site through:

• use of fines for daily and interim cover soil;

• modification to the existing groundwater and surface water monitoring programs;

• expansion of Site buffer zones to include additional lands owned by the

Municipality;

• expansion of the Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ) onto the Oxley Wetland;

• modification to the Landfill development sequence along the west side of the

existing landfill;

• modification to the surface water ditches and ponds; and

• implementation of an iron-reduction groundwater extraction and treatment system.

A amendment to the CofA to allow implementation of the Compliance Plan works was

issued by the MOE on September 26, 2006.

The Site limits and contaminant attenuation zone are shown on Drawing No. C-02

(Appendix L).

The Site abuts an aggregate pit to the west, undeveloped land to the north and a mixture

of undeveloped land and residential properties to the east and south. McDougall Road

is adjacent to the south portion of the Site and transects the southeast portion of the Site.

Beyond the Site limits, McDougall road is adjacent to the north side to the CAZ. Access

31807 (13) 3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


to the Site is gained via McDougall Road. The landfill footprint is set back

approximately 170 metres northwest of McDougall Road and is well screened by local

topography and vegetation. A weigh scale, office, and equipment shed are located

along the Site access road to the landfill. An area referred to as the “Front Pit” is located

east of the Landfill within the developed area of the Site. The “Front Pit” is low-lying

area, which is remnant of historic aggregate extraction operations at the Site.

The existing conditions at the Site in November 2004 are shown on drawing C-01

(Appendix L).

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF REPORT

The following report has been prepared in support of a Part V Application made under

the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to amend Provisional C of A No. A522101 to

accommodate additional capacity in the McDougall Landfill. This report is also

prepared in support of an amendment of Certificate of Approval for a Sewage Number

3-0178-94-006 issued under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act for

implementation of the surface water management works.

1.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

The Terms of Reference for completion of an individual Environmental Assessment (EA)

for the proposed Municipal Landfill Expansion were completed and approved by the

Minister of the Environment on June 30, 2004.

The Environmental Assessment for One or More Waste Disposal Solutions for the

Municipality of McDougall and Other Area Municipalities (EA Report) was submitted

by CRA to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in final in June 2005. The EA Report

was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment

Act (EAA) to enable the Municipality of McDougall to proceed with the landfill

expansion being considered.

On March 1, 2006, the proposed Expansion of the McDougall Landfill was designated

under the EAA under Order in Council 523/2006.

31807 (13) 4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


1.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

In addition to this D&O Plan, an Expansion Cell Incremental Impact Assessment Report

is being submitted to the MOE to form part of the supporting documentation to the Part

V EPA Application. The Expansion Cell Incremental Impact Assessment (Incremental

Impact Assessment) and the D&O have been prepared to meet the requirements of

Ontario Regulation 232/98. The Incremental Impact Assessment was built on the

current hydrogeologic knowledge of the Site and presents how the Expansion Cell will

fit into and react within the existing groundwater regime at the Site. The D&O presents

the design and operational procedures for the Site.

The Part V EPA Application is subject to application fees as stipulated in Ontario

Regulation 363/98.

1.3.3 ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT

An Application to amend the existing Certificate of Approval for Sewage Number

3-0178-94-006 issued under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) is

being prepared and will be submitted in the Fall of 2006 to obtain approval for

implementation of the surface water management works and the groundwater treatment

and leachate treatment systems proposed for the Site. Section 8.0 of this D&O will form

part of the supporting documentation for the Section 53 OWRA Approval Application

and provides details on the surface water management works proposed for the Site.

Supporting documentation for sewage works related to groundwater and leachate

treatment will be submitted under separate cover in support of the Application.

The OWRA Section 53 Application is subject to application fees as stipulated in Ontario

Regulation 364/98.

1.3.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with Condition 8 of the EAA Approval , the Draft D&O Plan was made

available for public viewing for a period of not less than 30 days before submission to

the Ministry of the Environment. The Draft D&O Plan was made available from June 10,

2006 to July 10, 2006, at the McDougall Municipal Office, #5 Fire Route 113, Nobel,

Ontario and from June 19, 2006 to July 10, 2006 on the Municipalities website at

http://www.municipalityofmcdougall.com/

31807 (13) 5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


To facilitate public review of the Draft D&O Plan, the Municipality of McDougall held a

Public Information Open House on Saturday June 10, 2006, at the McDougall Municipal

Offices. A Notice of Invitation to comment on the D&O and a Public Information Open

House (PIOH) was advertised in the Beacon Star on May 20, 2006 and the Parry Sound

North Star on Wednesday June 7, 2006. Copies of these notices are provided in

Appendix D. In addition to general notices, a letter providing notice of the availability

of the D&O and PIOH was distributed to the seven First Nations and five residential

properties located in the vicinity of the Site. In accordance with Condition 6 of the EAA

Approval, this letter also invited interested parties to join the Public Liaison Committee,

which would serve as a focus point for disseminations; review and exchange of

information and monitoring results relevant to the operation of the Landfill. The

distribution list for the letter of notice and a copy of the letter is provided in

Appendix D.

A summary of the Public Consultation activities and public comments received are

summarized in Appendix D.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This Design and Operations Plan is organized into the following sections:

• Section 1.0 Introduction;

• Section 2.0 Design Considerations;

• Section 3.0 Site Design;

• Section 4.0 Landfill Volumes;

• Section 5.0 Site Life;

• Section 6.0 Site Development;

• Section 7.0 Groundwater/Leachate Management Plan;

• Section 8.0 Surface Water Management Plan;

• Section 9.0 Landfill Gas Assessment and Management Plan;

• Section 10.0 Site Facilities;

• Section 11.0 Site Operation; and

• Section 12.0 Site Monitoring.

31807 (13) 6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


1.5 OTHER REPORTS

A list of reports referenced throughout the D&O are provided at the end of the report.

31807 (13) 7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGINATION

The Official Plan (OP) governing the Site is the Municipality of McDougall Official Plan

dated December 2004. Section 15.02 of the OP, "Landfill Impact Area", recognizes that

some lands near the existing McDougall Landfill Site may be impacted by

leachate-impacted groundwater migrating from the Site. Lands within the Landfill

Impacted Area are designated as “Rural” and “Environmentally Sensitive”. The policy

further states that lands within the Landfill Impacted Area have been placed in a

“Holding Zone” pending the outcome of investigations to assess any environmental

impacts and the lands will remain designated as Holding Zone until the Municipality is

satisfied that water quality issues have been properly addressed.

Official Plan Amendment 55 passed by Municipal By-law 2001-26 provided that certain

lands within the vicinity of the McDougall Landfill Site also be placed in the “Holding

Zone” pending the outcome of investigations to assess any environmental impacts.

2.2 ZONING DESIGINATION

The Zoning By-law governing the Site is the Municipality of McDougall By-law 2004-50.

The McDougall Landfill Site is zoned “Waste Disposal (M5) Zone”. The Waste Disposal

(M5) Zone allows for a solid waste collection, sorting, processing and disposal area, a

waste transfer station, a recycling facility, and accessory structures.

As previously noted Municipal By-law 2001-26 placed a Holding Zone on the Site and

all lands around the Site. The Holding Zone (H) is applied in addition to other existing

zoning and flags the presence of the landfill site. The Landfill Site is therefore zoned as

M5-H.

2.3 SUMMARY OF SITE SETTING

The following section summarizes the Site setting with respect to topography, surface

water, geology, and hydrogeology. Additional information on the physical Site setting

is provided in detail in the Compliance Plan Summary Report (CRA, 2006) and the

Expansion Cell Incremental Impact Assessment (CRA, 2006).

31807 (13) 8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


2.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY

The topography in the vicinity of the Site is hummocky and irregular. The Site is located

in the Canadian Shield geographic region of Canada, characterized by rugged

topography with low hills, many lakes, and many bedrock exposures of granite or other

igneous or metamorphic rocks. Ground elevation ranges from 207 to 260 m above mean

sea level (m AMSL), and hills have up to 50 m of relief. The topography is strongly

controlled by bedrock features: folding, structural trends and faults. Many small lakes

or wetlands occupy bedrock depressions near the Site. The Landfill is located at a

regional topographic high point, where the ground has an elevation of between 245 and

255 m AMSL, up to 50 m higher than lakes and rivers in the vicinity. The majority of the

land surrounding the Site is forested; other land uses include recreational uses (cottages,

campgrounds, and golf courses), private residences, and aggregate extraction.

2.3.2 SURFACE WATER

The Site is part of the Parry Sound Watershed. All surface water in the area of the Site

eventually discharges to the Seguin River, which is the largest regional drainage feature.

The Seguin River flows west to Mountain Basin and Mill Lake eventually discharging to

Parry Sound and Georgian Bay.

There are no natural surface water bodies or drainage features identified on the Site.

Several small lakes, creeks and wetlands are located within one kilometre of the Site

boundaries, including Agnes Lake, Cramadog Lake, a wetland and small pond between

Agnes and Cramadog Lakes that will be referred to as Little Cramadog Lake, and a

wetland located on the property owned by Oxley (Oxley Wetland), all of which

ultimately discharge to the Seguin River.

As previously noted, the Landfill is located at a regional topographic high point. This

highpoint comprises a surface watershed divide, and surface water runoff drains

radially out from the lined landfill area in all directions. There are four surface water

catchment areas that include surface water drainage from the Site. These catchment

areas include the Seguin Lake, Front Pit, Cramadog Lake, and Oxley Wetland

Catchment Areas. The Catchment Areas are illustrated on Figure 2.1 and are described

in detail in the Compliance Plan Summary Report (CRA, 2006).

31807 (13) 9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


2.3.3 SITE GEOLOGY

2.3.3.1 OVERBURDEN GEOLOGY

The Site is situated in a glaciolacustrine deposit of silt to medium sand, with some

gravely lenses. This deposit is found throughout the Site with the exception of the

hilltop northeast of the existing Landfill and the hilltop southwest of the existing

Landfill. These hilltops consist of shallow glacial till deposits, less than 1 m thick,

overlying bedrock. The heterogeneous deposit of primarily sand and gravel overlies

bedrock and has been described as a subsequatic outwash fan (Kor, 1991). The thickness

of the deposit varies due to the uneven bedrock surface below, and thickness ranges

from 0 to 25 m on the Site. It is deepest 50-100 m southeast of the existing Landfill where

a bedrock trough is located. The deposit ranges from 2-20 m thick beneath the Existing

Landfill, and in most areas, is greater than 10 m thick. Beneath the area of the Expansion

Cell, the glaciofluvial deposit generally ranges from 2-10 m thick such that it is thinnest

in the north and thickest in the south. Where recovered fines have been stockpiled,

bedrock is up to 15 m below ground surface because of the additional height of the

stockpiles. In the southwest corner of the expansion area, the overburden locally attains

a maximum thickness of 20 m where a buried bedrock valley is present.

2.3.3.2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY

The bedrock underlying the Site has been described as massive mafic/gneissic

metamorphic rock. This bedrock is part of the Grenville geologic province of the

Canadian Shield; a region defined by hard crystalline bedrock and rugged topography

with numerous small lakes. Bedrock exposure is common in the area along the many

lakes, or at hilltops where soil and glacial drift cover is thin. Hewitt (1967) mapped the

bedrock of this region and describes all bedrock within 1 kilometre of the Site as

metasedimentary, containing amphibolite, hornblende, gneiss and schist. These rocks

have been folded into large structural features, which control topography and drainage

in the area, as described by Hewitt (1967). The amphibolites are medium grained

equigranular rocks composed primarily of hornblende and plagioclase, with accessory

minerals of biotite, quartz, ortho and clino-pyroxenes, scapolite and garnet. Minor

accessories of carbonate, epidote, pyrite and magnetite have also been found in the

bedrock of this region.

Beneath the Site, the bedrock surface is uneven, with bedrock ridges and valleys that do

not mimic surficial topography. Bedrock contours have been mapped using borehole

logs (Gartner Lee, 1986) and geophysical methods (Henderson Paddon, 1995) in the

31807 (13) 10 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


central and southwestern portion of the Site, and are depicted on Figure 2.2. The existing

Landfill lies atop a saddle point between two bedrock highs; one northeast of the

existing Landfill and a second which is southwest, on the Parry Sound Sand and Gravel

property. A prominent bedrock valley has been identified starting at the southeast

corner of the existing Landfill and extending in a southeast direction towards

McDougall Road. A second bedrock valley has been identified to the northwest of the

existing Landfill, extending onto the Parry Sound Sand and Gravel Property.

The bedrock topography beneath the Expansion Cell slopes gently towards the south

and southeast. The depth to bedrock beneath the Expansion Cell varies from 0 to 6 m

below the bottom of the liner, such that the overburden is thinnest in the northwest and

thickest in the southwest and east portions of the Expansion Cell. Blasting/excavation

of bedrock will be required beneath the Expansion Cell in order to accommodate

construction of the liner system to the proposed grades presented on Drawing No. C-04

(Appendix L).

2.3.4 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY

The large glaciolacustrine overburden deposit underneath the Site comprises an

unconfined aquifer, with a reported hydraulic conductivity ranging from 1 x 10 -4 to

3 x 10 -7 metres/second (Ince, 2005). The groundwater flow directions in this overburden

aquifer appear to be controlled by bedrock topography, as the bedrock unit is

considerably less permeable to bulk groundwater flow. Mean linear groundwater flow

velocity in the overburden aquifer is reported to be approximately 100 metres/year

(Ince, 2005). Following review of the hydraulic gradients (Ince, 2005) and the range of

hydraulic conductivities (Henderson-Paddon, 1995) determined in the vicinity of the

Site, CRA has established that the groundwater velocity beneath, and in the vicinity of

the Site may be as low as 10 metres/year. The bedrock has a low hydraulic conductivity

and is generally not heavily fractured.

All residential wells in the vicinity of the Site draw water from the unconfined

overburden aquifer except for one: the former Butler residence well (W12), which is a

bedrock well.

A groundwater flow divide is located under the existing Landfill, controlled by the

presence of the underlying bedrock saddle. Bedrock topography and water level

measurements indicate that there are three primary groundwater flow paths originating

from the Site: the Seguin Lake flow path, the Little Cramadog Lake flow path, and the

Oxley Wetland flow path. These are presented on Figure 2.2, and are descried further in

31807 (13) 11 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


the Compliance Plan Summary Report (CRA, 2006). In the vicinity of PW-1, the Little

Cramadog Lake and Oxley Wetland flow paths appear to converge in the bedrock

trough, but are again separated by a subsurface bedrock ridge in the vicinity of

monitoring well BHP. Groundwater flow from beneath the existing Landfill and the

Expansion Cell contribute to the Little Cramadog Lake and the Oxley Wetland flow

paths.

Under most surrounding regions, the overburden aquifer is absent (less than 1 m thick)

due to the presence of bedrock subcrops. However, water level contours reported by

Ince (2005) indicate an overburden aquifer is present beneath the southwest corner of

the Expansion Cell in the vicinity of well BHA-2. The surface water table in 2004 was

approximately 5 m below the proposed Expansion Cell liner elevation at this location.

Therefore an unsaturated zone may be present beneath the Expansion Cell. Figure 2.2

presents the groundwater flow and well locations and Figure 2.3 presents the

groundwater and surface water flow directions at the Site.

2.4 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

The characteristics of the waste that will be disposed of in the Expansion Cell are

considered to be the same as that historically disposed of at the Site. The McDougall

Landfill is currently approved to accept domestic waste and solid non-hazardous wastes

as defined by General Waste Management Regulation R.R.O. 1990, Ontario Regulation

O. Reg. 347 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Site service area is not stipulated for the current C of A, however wastes received at

the Site are typically generated by sources within the Municipality of McDougall,

Township of the Archipelago, Township of Carling, Township of Seguin, Township of

McKellar, and Town of Parry Sound.

All municipalities that use the Site currently operate recycling programs including

paper, plastic, tin and glass (Refer to Section 2.7). As such, recycling at the Site is limited

to scrap metal, wood, white goods, and tires. Scrap metal is stockpiled and removed

from the Site by a recycling contractor as required. Wood and brush is stockpiled and

chipped as required, for use as daily cover and road stabilization material.

Tires have been stockpiled on-Site since 1999. Tires were removed in 2004 and 2005 by a

tire recycler and less than 5,000 tires currently remain stockpiled on–Site (Ince, 2006).

31807 (13) 12 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


2.5 REFUSE DENSITY

Refuse density is the weight of refuse per volume of refuse and daily cover soil disposed

at a landfill. Modern landfill compaction equipment and techniques employed at well

operated landfill sites can typically attain an average minimum refuse density of at least

0.6 tonnes of refuse into each cubic metre of air space consumed.

Given the nature of the refuse and the landfilling equipment and placement techniques

currently employed at the McDougall Landfill Site, a refuse density of 0.6 tonnes/m 3 has

been assumed to be a typical refuse density that will be attained at the Site.

2.6 POPULATION FORECAST

The population forecast for the Municipality of McDougall and surrounding Townships

was evaluated in the Engineering/Planning Evaluation and Cost Assessment

McDougall Landfill Site (CRA, 2003). This report identified permanent, seasonal, and

total population projections based on rates of increase from municipal directories and

Statistics Canada. The annual total population growth rate for all the Municipalities

using the McDougall Landfill Site is estimated at 0.9%.

2.7 WASTE DIVERSION ACTIVITIES

All of the Municipalities that use the Site encourage permanent and seasonal residents

and visitors to divert waste through the placement and use of recycling bins in the area.

Diversion is also achieved through backyard and municipal collection composting

activities. The Town of Parry Sound offers a green box curbside organics collection

program for its residents, where the compostable materials are collected, sorted and

shipped to Bracebridge for further processing.

The following indicates the overall reported diversion rates for each of the evaluated

Municipalities 1 .

1 Information on diversion rates was collected through short surveys to each of the evaluated

Municipalities during conduct of the EA Report.

31807 (13) 13 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Municipality

2003 Diversion Rate

Town of Parry Sound 48%

Township of The Archipelago 44%

Township of Carling 13%

Municipality of McDougall 86% 2

Township of McKellar 8%

Township of Seguin 24%

The Municipality of McDougall supports the Province’s overall diversion goal of 60%

and is doing its part as a northern municipality. When comparing diversion efforts of

other northern Ontario municipalities, the Municipality of McDougall, has a higher than

average diversion rate. The median diversion rate for northern municipalities with

populations less than 5,000 was 4.0% in 2003, whereas McDougall’s diversion rate (not

including scrap metals, wood and tires) was 14.1% in the same period.

There are several solid waste transfer stations/recycling depots located throughout the

service area. Municipalities with curb-side collection, such as the Town of Parry Sound,

also have a blue-box system in place.

As part of the Environmental Assessment, the Municipalities were surveyed in order to

determine current diversion efforts. The following is a list of responses received from

each of the participating municipalities:

Municipality

Town of Parry Sound

Township of the Archipelago

Township of Carling

Township of McDougall

Township of McKellar

Township of Seguin

2003 Tonnes Recycled (approximate)

680 tonnes/year

400 tonnes/year

63 tonnes/year

236 tonnes/year + over 4,000 tires

62 tonnes/year

486 tonnes/year

The McDougall Landfill has restricted public access and the bulk of McDougall residents

take their household refuse to a transfer station where recycling occurs. All

municipalities that use the Landfill operate recycling programs and waste is segregated

2 This number includes scrap metal, tires, and wood separated at the Landfill. Not including these

numbers reduces the overall diversion rate to 14.1%

31807 (13) 14 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


efore arrival at the Site. The McDougall Landfill does not currently accept any blue box

recyclable materials for separation and off-site disposal. At the Landfill, the

Municipality separates white goods/metals, wood, and tires from the waste stream.

White goods and tires are shipped off-Site for recycling, while clean wood is chipped for

use on-Site or sold for off-Site uses. Any hazardous waste is diverted to the Town of

Parry Sound hazardous waste depot or other licensed hazardous waste facilities.

During the Expansion period, waste diversion rates are expected to increase and may

include diversion of shingles, drywall and cardboard from the waste stream. The

Municipality is also considering the development of a composting facility at the Site.

Prior to implementation of composting at the Site, approval from the MOE will be

sought.

2.8 ALLOWABLE FILL RATE

An allowable fill rate for the Site is not specified in the C of A. Given seasonal

fluctuations in waste disposed and the acceptance of clean/inert fill at the Site, the

design of the Site has been undertaken to accommodate a fill rate of up to

500 tonnes/day.

2.9 END USE

There is presently no End Use Plan formalized for the Site. It is anticipated that most of

the area will have no active land use taking place upon it. Use of the Site will likely

consist of enhanced regeneration/restoration of the Site. The final contours presented in

the D&O will allow for a revegetated passive land use area.

A detailed End Use and Site Closure Plan will be prepared 2 years prior to the Site

reaching the approved final contours as may be amended over time. The End Use and

Closure Plan will be prepared with regards to the requirements outlined in the “Landfill

Standards, A Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New and

Expanding Landfill Sites (MOE 1998)” and will include but not be limited to the

following:

• proposed end use;

• final contour configuration;

• design and construction of final cover;

31807 (13) 15 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


• landscaping;

• site facilities (if any);

• closure schedule;

• rodent control;

• surface water control; and

• post-closure inspection, maintenance, and monitoring.

The End Use and Site Closure Plan will be submitted to the MOE for approval prior to

implementation.

2.10 DESIGN CONCEPT

The design requirements for the Expansion Cell are based on the design requirements of

Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 232/98. The supporting document “Landfill Standards, A

Guideline on the Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New and Expanding

Landfill Sites (MOE 1998)” was used as a reference document in evaluating and

establishing the design constraints and requirements for the Site. The design constraints

and requirements include the following:

• the establishment of adequate buffer zones;

• an assessment of the hydrogeological performance of the design within the

hydrogeologic conditions of the Site;

• a defined maximum refuse volume (air space);

• a design that is protective of groundwater quality;

• a design that provides for on-Site soil balance or surplus;

• a design that provides for leachate collection and management;

• a design that provides for groundwater management;

• a design that provides for surface water management;

• an assessment of landfill gas production and potential for subsurface migration;

• ancillary features to prevent nuisance impacts associated with landfilling activities

including odour, dust, noise, and traffic;

• adequate Site facilities and operations;

• long-term monitoring, inspection, maintenance, and reporting plan; and

• contingency plan for the contaminating life span of the Site.

31807 (13) 16 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


A hydrogeological performance assessment for the existing landfill was completed

independent of the proposed expansion and is presented in the Compliance Plan

Summary Report (CRA, amended May 2006). The hydrogeological performance

assessment for the Expansion Cell was completed in conjunction with this D&O and is

documented in the Expansion Cell Incremental Impact Assessment Report (CRA, 2006).

The hydrogeological assessments established the suitability of the design, monitoring

and contingency plans for expansion of the Site. A summary of the hydrogeological

assessment activities is presented in Section 7.4.

Buffer zones were established as part of the Compliance Plan and meet the requirements

of O.Reg. 232/98 for the Expansion Cell.

The Expansion Cell design consists of a Site-specific design as specified in O.Reg.

232/98 based on the MOE's Reasonable Use Guideline for Groundwater Protection.

Details of the Site-specific design are presented in Section 3.0.

A construction quality control and quality assurance (CQC&QA) plan has been

developed for implementation during construction of the Expansion Cell. The

CQC&QA plan is provided in Appendix E.

The final contours for the Expansion Cell were designed to provide the required

volumetric capacity for the Site and to ensure that the final waste contours were

consistent with current landfill standards and existing Site features. Details of the final

contours are presented in Section 3.4.

Landfill and soil volumes were estimated based on the proposed base and final contours

for the Expansion Cell. A soil balance was completed comparing soil available from site

development versus soil required for site development. Details of the soil volume

calculations for the Expansion Cell are presented in Section 4.3.

The Expansion Cell has been designed for a fill rate of 500 tonnes/day, as previously

discussed in Section 2.8.

The development sequence plan for the Expansion Cell was designed to minimize

nuisance impacts, simplify management of surface water, leachate and construction and

to provide progressive closure of the Site throughout the operating period. The

development sequence plan is presented in Section 6.0.

31807 (13) 17 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


A leachate management plan was designed for the Site to detail the collection and

disposal of collected leachate. The Long-term Leachate Management Plan is to provide

on-Site treatment. Details of the leachate management plan are presented in Section 7.0.

A surface water management plan has been designed to control surface water runoff

from the Site in order to ensure drainage onto or leaving the Site does not adversely

affect Site operations or on-Site and/or off-Site surface water quality. Details of the

surface water management design are presented in Section 8.0.

A landfill gas assessment was performed to assess landfill gas production and the

potential for subsurface migration of landfill gas from the Site. Details of the landfill gas

assessment are included in Section 9.0.

Ancillary features have been designed to minimize the impacts associated with odour,

dust, noise, and traffic. Engineered facilities at the Site have been designed to ensure

adequate service life. Site facilities are presented in Section 10.0.

Operation and maintenance procedures have been developed for the Site to ensure the

environmental control and monitoring works continue to function as designed for as

long as they are needed. Site operations are presented in Section 11.0.

Monitoring, inspection, maintenance, and reporting requirements for the Site are

presented in Section 12.0.

The contingency plans for potential leachate and groundwater management and landfill

gas management are presented in Sections 7.0 and 9.0 respectively.

31807 (13) 18 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


3.0 SITE DESIGN

3.1 EXPANSION AREA

In February 2003 CRA, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of McDougall,

completed an evaluation of the suitability of continued use of the Municipal Landfill for

long-term waste management purposes. This evaluation considered various expansion

alternatives adapted to the physical and environmental limitations of the Site and of the

adjacent properties. The evaluation concluded that an expansion of the Landfill

vertically and towards the east was the preferred Landfill Expansion alternative for the

McDougall Landfill Site.

The Expansion Cell footprint is approximately 3.7 ha. in size and forms a quadrilateral

shape. The size of the Expansion Cell footprint measures approximately 229 m, 139 m,

195 m and 221 m along the north, east, south, and west segments respectively. The

Expansion Cell abuts the east side of the existing landfill and extends west over the side

slope of the existing Landfill Cell. The proposed limits of the Expansion Cell are

presented on Drawing No. C-02 (Appendix L).

3.2 BUFFER ZONES

The Site encompasses 77.56 ha. consisting of 7.0 ha. of waste disposal area and 70.56 ha.

combined buffer zone and CAZ. Additionally, the CAZ extends onto the Oxley Wetland

where the municipality has established a groundwater easement. The extended CAZ

encompasses approximately 56.65 ha.

The primary purposes of buffer zones are to allow the implementation of environmental

controls, to provide sufficient land to locate operating facilities, and to buffer adjacent

lands from landfilling operations. In addition, the subsurface soil of the buffer area can

serve to provide natural attenuation of impacted groundwater.

The proposed buffer zones for the Site vary from a minimum of 167.3 m wide adjacent to

the south side of the Expansion Cell to a maximum of 543.4 m wide adjacent to the north

side of the Expansion Cell. The proposed buffer zones for the Site are shown on

Drawing No. C-02. As previously noted, the west side of the Expansion Cell abuts the

existing Landfill. The buffer zone provided along the west side of the existing Landfill

Cell is approximately 25 m.

31807 (13) 19 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The northern buffer zone is primarily used for the control and management of

groundwater and surface water, and contains a perimeter surface water drainage ditch,

perimeter access road, CAZ, and a surface water infiltration pond.

The western and eastern buffer zones are primarily used for the control and

management of groundwater and surface water, and contain perimeter surface water

drainage ditches, perimeter access roads, and CAZ.

The southern buffer zone is used for the control and management of groundwater and

surface water and for support facilities for Site operations. The southern buffer zone

contains a perimeter surface water drainage ditch and perimeter access road, Site

entrance and main access road, vehicle parking, leachate holding tanks, and segregated

metal and wood waste stockpile areas, surface water management pond, CAZ,

groundwater purge well, office/maintenance building, weigh scale, and recycling bins.

The future Iron Reduction and Leachate Treatment System(s) will also be located within

the southern buffer zone.

3.3 BASE DESIGN

The design of the Expansion Cell was based on the design requirements of

O. Reg. 232/98. This Regulation provides several options for the design of the landfill

base including a site-specific design option and two generic design options.

The Expansion Cell design for the McDougall Landfill is a site-specific design based on

the geological and hydrogeologic conditions present at the Site. A performance

assessment for the Expansion Cell is provided in the Expansion Cell Incremental Impact

Assessment (CRA, 2006).

The landfill base design is a single composite liner design consisting of a 1.5 mm thick

high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner overlying a 900 mm thick engineered clay liner.

The clay liner will be constructed to achieve a hydraulic conductivity of 6.8 x

10 -9 metres/second or less.

The top of the landfill liner will extend to a depth of approximately 5.8 metres below

ground surface (m bgs) along the northern limit of the Expansion Cell and to

approximately 12.6 m bgs in the southwest corner of the Expansion Cell. The base is

sloped in a north to south direction at 5%. The side slopes of the base are designed at a

slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V). The base grades range in elevation from

243.42 to 251.43 m AMSL.

31807 (13) 20 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The contouring of the base has been designed to facilitate the leachate collection system

overlying the composite liner. The base contours divide the base into three cells in a

north-south direction axis by permanent berms. The top of the berms will be a

minimum of 0.5 m high at the northern end of the Expansion Cell and increase 3 to 3.5 m

above the base at the southern end of the Expansion Cell. The berms will provide for

separation of clean and impacted water between the landfilled and non-landfilled cells

and will provide a capacity for storage of clean surface water accumulation in the nonlandfilled

cells. The height of the berms have been designed to permit storage of clean

water in Cells 2 and 3 equal to ½ of the historical average precipitation at the Site, such

that the accumulated water will only need to be removed two to three times per year on

average.

Within each cell the base is further divided into two parts on a north-south axis. In each

part the base slopes diagonally at approximately 7% to a 1.05 m deep swale. The swales

slope at 5% from north to south and are joined to a common header swale at the toe of

the south side slope.

The HDPE liner is designed and will be installed in accordance with the requirements

stipulated in Schedule 3 of O. Reg. 232/98 to provide for an assumed 150 year service

life for the geomembrane liner. The engineered clay liner is designed and will be

installed in accordance with the requirements stipulated in Schedule 4 of O.Reg. 232/98

to provide for an assumed unlimited service life for the compacted clay liner.

The landfill base is designed with a leachate collection system that overlays the

composite liner. The leachate collection system consists of collection laterals and header

and a granular drainage media. The leachate collection laterals/header will consist of

200 mm diameter HDPE piping with perforations 12 mm in diameter located along and

around the bottom of the pipe. Where the header pipe passes through the separation

berm between cells, the header pipe will be solid. The laterals will be spaced at a

maximum of 42 m intervals and connected to the header at the south end of the base.

The stone drainage media will be placed over the base of the landfill at a minimum

thickness of 0.3 m on the base and base side slopes and a minimum thickness of 0.6 m on

the leachate collection pipes. Non-woven geotextile will be installed between the stone

layer and the underlying liner to protect the HDPE liner. Woven geotextile will be

installed on top of the stone layer to provide separation from the overlying waste.

The contouring of the base and the layout of the leachate collection pipes have been

designed such that the drainage path before leachate can intercept a pipe is generally

less than 30 m. The collection system pipes will be accessed for maintenance through

31807 (13) 21 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


cleanout piping that will extend from the landfill base up the base side slopes to access

chambers located between the landfill and the perimeter access road. A main leachate

pump riser pipe will be installed in the drainage media at the end of the collection

header at the southwest corner of the Expansion Cell (Cell 1) from which collected

leachate will be removed as detailed further in Section 7.2.2. Pump riser pipes will also

be installed at the southwest corner of Cells 2 and 3 which will be used to remove the

accumulated clean water prior to these cells receiving refuse and to remove leachate

from these cells once refuse placement commences in these cells.

The header pipe will be fitted with a valve at the southwest corner of both Cell 2 and

Cell 3 of the Expansion Cell. The valves will remain closed until the cells commence

receiving waste. The valves will be opened or removed when landfilling begins in Cell 2

and subsequently in Cell 3 to allow for leachate collection from all cells by the primary

leachate collection sump riser pipe in Cell 1.

The leachate collection system is designed and will be installed in accordance with the

requirements stipulated in Schedule 1 of O.Reg. 232/98 to provide for an assumed

75 year service life for the leachate collection system.

A CQC&QA plan has been developed to be implemented during the construction of the

Site. The CQC&QA plan is provided in Appendix E.

The proposed base contours for the Expansion Cell are shown on Drawing No. C-04

(Appendix L).

3.4 FINAL CONTOURS

As specified in O.Reg. 232/98, a maximum slope of 4H:1V and a minimum slope of

20H:1V have been used for the final contours. The maximum elevation of the Landfill

(i.e. top of final cover) will be 275.75 m AMSL, being approximately 19.5 m above

surrounding ground elevations (nominal ground elevation of 256 m AMSL). The top of

the final cover around the perimeter of the Expansion Cell will vary from elevation

254.39 m AMSL at the southeast edge of the Expansion Cell to elevation 256.95 m AMSL

in the northwest corner of the Expansion Cell. This represents a 0.55 to 0.86% grade

around the perimeter of the landfill, which will facilitate the incorporation of perimeter

surface water drainage ditches in the final cover construction.

The maximum side slope of 4H:1V promotes surface water runoff while minimizing soil

erosion during surface water runoff events and facilitates equipment access for final

31807 (13) 22 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


cover construction and maintenance. The minimum slope of 20H:1V is the minimum

slope required to maintain surface water runoff.

The final cover will consist of a 0.6 m thick soil cover overlaid with a 0.15 m topsoil layer

and a vegetative cover. The soil cover will consist of imported material to provide a

cover that will allow a minimum infiltration rate of 0.15 m year in accordance with

O.Reg. 232/98 for an engineered Site. The topsoil used in the final cover construction

will be imported and suitable to sustain vegetation growth. The proposed final contours

are presented on Drawing No. C-03 (Appendix L).

3.5 DAILY COVER

At landfills accepting municipal solid waste, daily cover fulfills a number of functions

including: minimizing erosion of landfilled waste, minimizing blowing litter, reducing

odours, discouraging vector and vermin activity, and improving vehicular access to the

active disposal area.

As specified in O.Reg. 232/98, daily cover will be placed on the working face of the

landfill at the end of each working day to cover exposed refuse. Daily cover will

typically consist of a 0.15 m thick layer of soil.

The fines material recovered from historical waste extraction activities and wood chips

will be used for daily cover in addition to native sand and gravel. The fines material is

stockpiled in several locations surrounding the landfill area and is readily available for

cover at the end of each operating day. Clean or inert fill brought to the landfill for

disposal, will be segregated and stockpiled for use as daily cover soil if the material is

suitable for this purpose. As defined by the General Waste Management Regulation

R.R.O. 1990, O.Reg. 347 of the Environmental Protection Act, inert fill means “earth or

rock fill or waste of a similar nature that contains no putrescible materials or soluble or

decomposable chemical substances”.

Tarps may also be used to temporarily cover the active face of the landfill, with soil

being placed on a weekly basis. For the purposes of soil volume calculations, a design

ratio of volume of refuse to volume of daily cover soil equal to 4:1 was assumed for the

Site.

31807 (13) 23 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


3.6 INTERIM COVER

During development of the landfill, areas which are not part of the active disposal area

but are scheduled to receive additional lifts of waste at some time in the future will be

temporarily completed with interim cover soil. The application of interim cover will

help promote surface water runoff and limit the exposure of waste at the Site. Interim

cover will consist of a 0.3 m thick layer of soil. On-Site native material, recovered fines

and wood chips will be used as interim cover.

Interim cover will be placed on disposal areas as practical, after which landfilling will

resume until final contours are reached. Prior to resuming landfilling in an area

completed with interim cover, the interim cover will be removed to promote hydraulic

connection between the waste lifts and allow leachate to infiltrate readily to the leachate

collection system at the base of the landfill.

31807 (13) 24 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


4.0 LANDFILL VOLUMES

4.1 GENERAL

Expansion of the Landfill is anticipated to enable the Municipality of McDougall and

other municipalities in the area to have continued access to an environmentally sound

and economically feasible non-hazardous solid waste disposal facility for a period of

approximately 25 years.

Landfill volumes for the Expansion Cell were calculated using the computer program

Land Desktop 2006 by AutoDesk. This program calculates the change in volume

between two topographic surfaces using the grid method. A grid spacing of 1.0 m was

used for the volume calculations.

4.2 SITE VOLUMES

4.2.1 TOTAL SITE VOLUME

For the purposes of determining volumes for the Expansion Cell, it was assumed that

the north slope of the existing Landfill was completed to the final approved contours

detailed in the Short-Term Landfill Capacity Increase Provisional Certificate of Approval

No. A522101 Report (CRA, 2005) representing a Site capacity of 329,600 m 3 (waste and

daily cover soil). The footprint and final contours of the Expansion Cell were then

determined based on the design criteria (base grades, side slopes, final cover, capacity

required, etc.). Using 4H:1V side slopes and a top slope of 20H:1V, the elevation of the

transition from 20H:1V to 4H:1V slopes is approximately 275 m and the maximum

center ridge elevation of the landfill is 275.75 m AMSL.

The total volume (air space) for the Expansion Cell is calculated to be 739,275 m 3 and

includes waste and daily cover soil.

4.2.2 VOLUME LANDFILL

The landfill volume for the disposal of waste and daily cover soil was determined by

calculating the difference between top of the final refuse contours and the base contours.

The volume of air space available for the disposal of refuse and daily cover soil within

the Expansion Cell is calculated to be 700,719 m 3 . As previously noted, the approved

31807 (13) 25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


capacity of the existing Landfill is 329,600 m 3 for a total site capacity of 1,030,319 m 3

(refuse and daily cover soil).

4.2.3 REFUSE VOLUME

The volume of refuse to be disposed of within the Expansion Cell was determined by

subtracting the volume of daily cover soil from the volume of air space available for the

disposal of refuse and daily cover soil. For the purposes of refuse volume calculations, it

is assumed that the ratio of volume of refuse to volume of daily cover soil will be 4:1.

Based on this assumption, the volume of air space for the disposal of refuse within the

Expansion Cell is 560,575 m 3 (700,719 m 3 – 140,144 m 3 ).

4.3 SOIL VOLUME

4.3.1 SOIL REQUIREMENTS

The soils required for construction of the Expansion Cell include clay material that will

form part of composite liner system, soil and topsoil for final cover, daily cover, soil for

perimeter roads and ditches and soil for surface water management works. The

individual volume associated with each is discussed below. The soil requirements for

the construction and operation of the Expansion Cell are summarized on Table 4.1. In

addition, miscellaneous soils are required on a temporary basis for the construction of

surface water control berms and interim cover soils. However, soil required for these

temporary uses have not been included in the soil requirement calculations since the

soils will be removed prior to advancement of landfilling, the soils will be reused for

other applications, and the soils will not consume a portion of the Expansion Cell

volume.

Clay for Composite Liner System

The composite liner will consist of 0.9 m engineered clay liner. The total volume of low

permeable soil (clay) required for construction of the composite liner system is

approximately 38,619 m 3 . The low impermeable soil will be obtained from suitable

off-Site sources, as a source for this material is not available on-Site.

Final Cover

Final cover will consist of 0.6 m layer of soil overlaid by a 0.15 m layer of topsoil. The

total volume of final cover soil required for the Expansion Cell is approximately

38,556 m 3 , of which 30,845 m 3 is cover soil and 7,711 m 3 is topsoil. Soil and topsoil will

31807 (13) 26 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


e obtained from suitable off-Site sources, as a source for this material is not available

on-Site.

Daily Cover

Daily cover soil will be placed on the working face of the landfill at the end of each day,

as previously discussed in Section 3.5. Using a volume of refuse to volume of daily

cover ratio of 4:1, the volume of daily cover soil required for the Expansion Cell is

approximately 140,144 m 3 . Native material, recovered fines and wood chips will be used

for daily cover soil and will be obtained from on-Site stockpiles and native material

excavated to construct the Expansion Cell base. Tarps may also be used to temporarily

cover the active area reducing the volume of daily cover soil required.

Access Roads and Surface Water Management Works

The main access road and perimeter roads will be elevated to provide appropriate

surface water drainage and to create the perimeter ditches between the landfill and

perimeter roads. Surface water ponds will be constructed to control and infiltrate

collected surface water.

The roads, perimeter ditches and surface water management ponds will be constructed

using sand and gravel from on-Site and off-Site sources. The side slopes of the

perimeter ditches and ponds will be overlaid with 0.15 m of topsoil. The total volume of

soil required for the construction of the access roads, perimeter roads and ditches, and

surface water management works is approximately 26,513 m 3 , of which 24,463 m 3 is

sand and gravel and 2,050 m 3 is topsoil.

4.3.2 SOIL AVAILABILITY AND BALANCE

The total volume of soil available as a result of construction of the Expansion Cell base is

estimated to be approximately 262,097 m 3 of sand and gravel. An additional 27,000 m 3

of recovered fines are available from the on-Site stockpiles for use as daily cover soils.

In comparing the volume of available sand and gravel to the volume of sand and gravel

required for construction and operation of the Expansion Cell, a sand and gravel surplus

of approximately 124,490 m 3 is predicted.

Low permeable soil is not available on-Site, as such; a deficit of 69,464 m 3 is predicted.

The low permeable soil required for construction will be obtained or imported from

suitable off-Site sources.

31807 (13) 27 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Topsoil is not available on-Site, as such; a deficit of 9,761 m 3 is predicted. The topsoil

required for construction will be imported from suitable off-Site sources.

31807 (13) 28 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


5.0 SITE LIFE

The Expansion Cell was designed to provide a 25 year Site life. Based on waste

generation rates determined as part of the Engineering/Planning Evaluation and Cost

Assessment (CRA, 2003) for Alternative 4, approximately 407,243 tonnes of capacity was

required to provide the 25 year Site life. Using a refuse density of 0.6 tonnes/m 3

(previously discussed in Section 2.5), the total air space required for the disposal of

refuse and daily cover soil over the 25 year planning period is calculated to be

678,738 m 3 . As previously noted in Section 4.2.1 the air space available for the disposal

of refuse and daily cover soil within the Expansion Cell is 700,719 m 3 , which provides

for an estimated 25 year Site life.

31807 (13) 29 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT

The Expansion Cell, perimeter roads and ditches and surface water management works

will be constructed in one stage. Once constructed, landfilling within the Expansion Cell

will be advanced in three stages (Cells 1 through 3) to adequately control environmental

impacts. The conceptual cell layout is provided on Drawing No. C-06 (Appendix L).

The cell sizes were developed based on similar sized base areas and the berm heights

were designed to provide a storage capacity for accumulated surface water (prior to

waste placement) for Cell 2 and 3 equal to one half of the annual historical precipitation

for the area.

Landfilling will commence in Cell 1 and waste will be landfilled using the area method

in two general phases being the lower portion of the disposal area and the upper portion

of the disposal area. Landfilling will progress from north to south within the cell and

will be completed in a phased manner as landfilling progresses vertically, The east side

slope of the cell will be shaped to provide for a 3:1 side slope from the base of the cell to

the top of refuse. Once Cell 1 is completed landfilling will commence in Cell 2.

The first 1-2 metres of waste placed over the composite liner system will be select waste

(waste free of demolition debris and other large sharp material) to protect the composite

liner system from damage. The first lift of waste will be placed within the first season to

provide frost protection.

Simultaneous with landfilling in the lower portion of Cell 1, and within the first season,

a minimum of 1.0 m of native sand will be placed over the base of Cells 2 and 3 to

provide frost protection for the composite liner system in Cells 2 and 3. To the extent

feasible, the native sand will be removed prior to commencing landfilling in these areas.

Temporary surface water diversion berms will be constructed using low permeable soil

to a height of approximately 1.0 m in each area, as landfilling progresses above the

elevation of the liner system, to prevent surface water within the landfill area, which has

contacted refuse, from leaving the disposal area. Diversion berms will also be

constructed to divert surface water runoff from entering the active disposal area as

required. All surface water that has contacted landfill refuse will be treated as leachate

and allowed to infiltrate to leachate collection system at the base of the landfill.

Interim cover will be placed on disposal areas which will remain inactive for more than

90 days, after which landfilling will resume until final contours are reached. Interim

cover will be removed for reuse prior to resumption of landfilling in order to promote

hydraulic connection between the refuse lifts. The timely placement of interim and final

31807 (13) 30 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


cover will reduce leachate generation by promoting surface water runoff and

minimizing infiltration into the landfill.

Final cover will be placed on areas of the landfill which have reached final contours.

31807 (13) 31 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


7.0 LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.1 IMPACTED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

7.1.1 RESIDUAL GROUNDWATER IMPACT

As detailed in the Compliance Plan Summary Report (CRA, 2006), residual leachate

derived impacts are present in the groundwater beneath and downgradient of the

existing Landfill. The groundwater flow from this area contributes to two flow paths

designated as the Little Cramadog Lake (southeast) and Oxley Wetland (east) flow

paths. The groundwater and surface water flow paths are illustrated on Figure 2.3.

The conclusions presented in recent annual monitoring reports and the results of the

Compliance Plan sampling program indicate that iron and manganese are the primary

contaminants of concern within the groundwater in exceedance of the regulatory

criteria.

Based on the results of the Compliance Plan, implementation of active on-Site iron

reduction measures was chosen as the preferred alternative to achieve groundwater and

surface water compliance criteria for the contaminants of concern along the Little

Cramadog Lake and Oxley Wetland flow paths.

7.1.2 ON-SITE IRON REDUCTION MEASURES

As part of the Compliance Plan activities, groundwater recovery from historic

groundwater extraction wells was tested. Based on the recovery test results and historic

work completed by Henderson Paddon (1995), groundwater extraction from PW1 is an

efficient means for mass reduction of iron and manganese in groundwater to achieve

groundwater compliance along the southern site boundary.

As detailed in the Compliance Plan Summary Report (CRA, 2006), an extraction rate of

45 litres per minute was achievable at PW1. The capture area of this extraction well at

this rate would include the majority of the source area and would extend northwesterly

beneath the existing lined Landfill cell.

The objective of the groundwater treatment system is to reduce iron and manganese

concentrations in the extracted groundwater and to re-infiltrate the treated water into

the Oxley Wetland groundwater regime. The recharged groundwater would then

undergo further treatment by natural attenuation along a defined groundwater flow

31807 (13) 32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


path (Oxley Wetland Flow Path) for further reduction of other residual leachate impacts

in order to achieve the regulatory criteria at the compliance locations. The conceptual

iron reduction treatment system is shown on Figure 7.1 consistent with the approved

Compliance Plan.

Details on the Iron Reduction Treatment System are presented in the Technical Design

Brief – Iron Reduction Treatment System provided in Appendix F.

As noted in Section 1.3.3, an application and supporting documentation to amend the

existing C of A for Sewage No. 3-0178-94-006 issued under Section 53 of the OWRA is

being prepared and will be submitted in Fall 2006 to obtain approval for implementation

of the proposed on-Site iron reduction treatment system. The iron reduction treatment

system is proposed to be combined with the leachate treatment system as discussed in

Section 7.2 below.

7.2 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

7.2.1 EXISTING LEACHATE CONTROLS

The existing Landfill Cell was constructed with a Leachate Collection System (LCS). The

LCS consists of perforated and solid HDPE collection pipes and header and drainage

media that carry the leachate to the pumping station located in the southwest corner of

the existing Landfill Cell. The leachate collected in the existing Landfill Cell is removed

from the pumping station on a continuous basis through pumping. The leachate is

pumped via forcemain to a tank truck loading facility located off the main access road

west of the Site office/weigh scale. The loading facility consists of three holding tanks

and piping to facilitate the transfer of leachate from the holding tanks to tank truck for

subsequent off-Site disposal. The capacity of the holding tanks is approximately 400 m 3 .

The approximate configuration of the existing LCS and leachate pumping station is

shown on Drawing C-01 (Appendix L).

7.2.2 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM – EXPANSION CELL

As discussed in Section 3.3, the landfill base of the Expansion Cell is designed with a

LCS that overlays the composite liner and consists of drainage media and collection

piping. The LCS is designed to ultimately direct leachate to a low point at the southwest

corner of the Expansion Cell, where pump riser pipe will be located from which

collected leachate will be removed through pumping. A pump riser pipe will also be

31807 (13) 33 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


installed at the low points in both Cells 2 and 3 for removal of accumulated surface

water prior to commencement of waste placement in these cells.

7.2.3 LEACHATE HANDLING – EXPANSION CELL

The leachate collected by the LCS will be removed from the low point in the LCS on a

continuous basis through pumping. A pumping system will be installed in the pump

riser pipe to pump the collected leachate via a buried forcemain to the existing tank

truck loading facility.

The pumping system will consist of a commercially available leachate pump configured

with dolly wheels to facilitate installation and removal through the sloping pumping

system riser pipe.

As previously noted, the capacity of the existing holding tanks of approximately 400 m 3

(400,000/litres), provides adequate storage capacity at the maximum anticipated

average daily leachate generation rate.

The leachate pumping systems will be, and the tank truck loading facility is, automated

with fail safe high level monitoring to ensure the capacity of the holding tank will not be

exceeded due to pumping from the existing Landfill Cell and Expansion Cell LCS’s.

7.2.4 LEACHATE DISPOSAL

The leachate from the Site will continue to be hauled by tank truck for disposal at a

licensed liquid waste disposal facility in the short-term (1 to 3 years).

The long-term solution for Leachate Management is to develop an on-Site leachate

treatment system as outlined in Section 7.2.5.

7.2.5 LONG-TERM LEACHATE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION

(ON-SITE LEACHATE TREATMENT)

Leachate is currently stored on-Site in three leachate holding tanks and transported off-

Site for treatment, as previously detailed. In December 2003, CRA on behalf of the

Municipality completed a Leachate Treatment System Conceptual Design Report (CRA,

2003) to evaluate treatment alternatives and costs for the development and operation of

31807 (13) 34 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


an on-Site leachate treatment system for the treatment of leachate from the existing

Landfill Cell and the expansion Cell. Based on the results of the evaluation, it was

concluded that on-Site treatment of leachate is both technically and economically

feasible.

The selection of an appropriate treatment process sequence was considered based on

leachate characteristics, effluent criteria, site characteristics and costing. Additionally

the capacity of a treatment process to adapt to changes in leachate quality and quantity

that occur over time with changing landfill conditions was considered in selection of an

appropriate treatment method. The recommended treatment method was a biological

nutrient removal process (anoxic/oxic).

The proposed anoxic/oxic treatment process would consist of an anoxic tank, an oxic

tank, and a clarifier enclosed in a building and a sludge storage lagoons, polishing pond,

and an infiltration pond. The iron-reduction groundwater treatment system and the

leachate treatment system will be combined into one system. The treated groundwater

and leachate will be recharged into the groundwater for further management.

As noted in Section 1.3.3 and Section 7.1.2, an application and supporting

documentation to amend the C of A Sewage will be prepared and submitted to the MOE

for approval prior to implementation of the combined iron-reduction/leachate treatment

system.

A detailed design of the groundwater/leachate treatment system will be prepared and

submitted to the MOE in support of OWRA Section 53 Amendment once the

Municipality is in a position to move from off-Site disposal to on-Site treatment.

7.2.6 LEACHATE GENERATION

The leachate generation rate within the existing Landfill Cell and the Expansion Cell is

detailed in the Leachate Treatment System Conceptual Design Report (CRA, 2003).

Leachate generation is dependent on a number of factors including the amount of

precipitation, the landfill area, and the various stages and durations of landfill

development (e.g., areas of cells, areas of exposed refuse, areas completed with final

cover, etc.).

As specified in the Leachate Treatment System Conceptual Design Report (CRA, 2003),

the calculated leachate generation rate for the existing Landfill area is 5,825 m 3 /year or

31807 (13) 35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


11 litres per minute (L/min.). The leachate generation rate for the Expansion Cell was

calculated to be a maximum of 18,5000 m 3 /year (35 L/min.). Following closure of the

Expansion Cell, the leachate generation rate is expected to be 11,100 m 3 /year

(21 L/min.).

7.2.7 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION

The chemical composition of leachate is highly variable, changing over both space and

time, with site conditions. Leachate quality is affected by a number of factors including

the site setting, waste characteristics, landfilling operations, climate, to name a few. As

leachate is dependent on site conditions, it is unique to each landfill site. As such, sitespecific

leachate quality data is required to evaluate future contaminant loadings.

Historical leachate quality data for the Site is limited in terms of the amount of data and

number of compounds analyzed. The leachate quality has also been affected by the

exhumation and containment of landfilled waste at the Site. In addition, recent

analytical results for leachate from the temporary storage tanks are not representative of

Site leachate since the leachate is diluted with impacted groundwater from extraction

well BHA-2.

A leachate quality assessment was undertaken as part of the Leachate Treatment System

Conceptual Design Report (CRA, 2003). This assessment considered leachate quality up

to the end of 1999, leachate quality from 2000 to 2002, which represents a mixture of

leachate and impacted groundwater, quality of the impacted groundwater at BHA-2,

and a single leachate sample collected in September 2003. Comparing leachate quality

data at the Site to leachate quality data from other selected landfill sites and typical

leachate data made up the assessment of the leachate quality. The data comparison is

presented in Table 7.1.

Leachate quality at the Site appears to be relatively stable and of generally low strength

when compared to other landfills. The current leachate has a low to moderate nitrogen

(ammonia) load, a low organic load, a low inorganic load and low phenol

concentrations.

The future leachate quality is anticipated to be similar to the current leachate up until

the commissioning of the Expansion Cell. As the Expansion Cell becomes active and

produces leachate, the leachate can be expected to be of much higher strength, in

particular, the stronger leachate will exhibit increased organic and nutrient loads.

31807 (13) 36 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


7.3 EVALUATION OF SITE PERFORMANCE

7.3.1 TRIGGER LEVEL ASSESSMENT PLAN

A Trigger Level Assessment Plan has been developed to ensure water quality moving

off-Site meets or exceeds all applicable MOE water quality standards, including Ontario

Drinking Water Standards (ODWS), Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and

the Reasonable Use Concept (RUC). Trigger Level parameters were chosen by

comparing the leachate quality to the ODWS and PWQO criteria to determine those

leachate constituents that are of potential concern.

The natural attenuation compliance for all flow paths (Seguin Lake, Little Cramadog

Lake and Oxley Wetland flow paths) is addressed through comparison of the

compliance location quality data to background surface water quality and PWQO as all

surface water flows discharge to surface water. Where groundwater exits the Site before

reaching the surface water, compliance is also addressed through the comparison of

compliance location quality data to RUC criteria. Five trigger locations have been

established to evaluate Site performance. A list of the compliance monitoring locations

and the flow path that they represent is presented in Table 7.2 and the list of chosen

trigger parameters is provided in Table 7.3.

The trigger level assessment program has been developed in accordance with the MOE

Guideline 232/98. The key components of the three-tier evaluation program are

provided below:

Tier I – Routine Monitoring

Ground and surface water monitoring at the Site will take place twice per year for an

extended list of parameters, and twice per year for a reduced list of parameters, as

discussed further in Section 12.0. The annual monitoring program is part of the Tier I

trigger program and is considered to be an Alert Level of monitoring. At Tier I

monitoring, trigger level parameters will be defined by the PWQO or as the

corresponding mean background concentration at SW26, whichever is greater, as well as

by RUC where applicable. At present, a one-year mean background concentration (2004

monitoring events) has been utilized in the assessment to calculate the trigger level

concentrations. As data becomes available, a five-year mean background concentration

of all indicator parameters will be calculated.

31807 (13) 37 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Tier II – Confirmation Monitoring

If during a single quarter-annual monitoring event, two or more trigger parameter

concentrations exceed the Tier I trigger concentrations at a single compliance location,

the Tier II Confirmation Monitoring program would be implemented. The Tier II

Confirmation Monitoring program consists of collecting water quality samples in

duplicate from the location exhibiting the Tier I exceedance during the next scheduled

monitoring event in order to confirm the Tier I exceedances of the trigger parameters. If

the duplicate samples indicate that Tier I trigger concentrations are no longer being

exceeded then Tier I monitoring will resume.

If the Tier I exceedance is confirmed, then the next step in the Tier II Confirmation

Monitoring program will be to evaluate the degree, nature, and potential source(s) of

trigger level impact identified in Tier I. As a first step, the trigger parameter

concentrations will be compared to the established trigger level concentrations,

calculated as per Tier I monitoring. The comparison and compliance with established

trigger level concentrations is to be utilized as an indicator of the timing and urgency of

response. The comparison will also include parameter trend analysis over time with

emphasis on seasonal variations, if any, for trigger parameters and an evaluation of the

need to increase monitoring frequency or expand the trigger level parameter list. If the

Tier II Confirmation Monitoring program indicates the Site is out of compliance then the

need to implement contingency measures will be evaluated and implemented, through

consultation with MOE staff.

Tier III – Compliance Monitoring

The Tier III Compliance Monitoring is a program designed to assess the effectiveness of

the contingency measures. The Tier III Compliance Monitoring program details would

be determined in conjunction with the development and implementation of the

preferred remedial measure. The compliance performance trigger parameters,

concentrations, locations and monitoring frequency would be determined at such time.

7.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Modelling undertaken for the Landfill Expansion indicates no anticipated off-Site

adverse impacts to the groundwater as a result of the Expansion Cell, as detailed in the

Incremental Impact Assessment (CRA, 2006). Nonetheless, a series of contingency

measures have been identified and developed to mitigate any adverse groundwater

conditions during and subsequent to the operation of the Expansion Cell.

31807 (13) 38 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The contingency measures developed for the Site are summarized in the following

sections and are hydrogeologically feasible and consistent with the groundwater

management approach at the Site.

7.4.1 GROUNDWATER CONTINGENCY PLANS

In the event of confirmation of an exceedance as per the Trigger Level Assessment

Program outlined above, the need for contingency measures to bring the water quality

back to within regulatory compliance will be evaluated at such time. If it is determined

that contingency measures are necessary, a preferred strategy will be chosen, and

implemented, under the direction of MOE staff. Possible contingency measures may

include, but are not limited to, expansion of the Groundwater Treatment System

through construction of an additional groundwater extraction well, or construction of a

subsurface cut-off wall to redirect leachate-impacted groundwater to the existing

groundwater extraction well, PW1.

7.4.2 LEACHATE CONTROL CONTINGENCY

As discussed in Section 7.3, the Site has been designed to minimize potential leachate

build-up. The Site will be constructed with a LCS extending beneath the entire

Expansion Cell including the bottom and side slopes of the base.

Should leachate mounding occur in specific areas of the Site due to failure of the LCS,

the affected portion of the LCS will be investigated and cleaned as required.

Should a leachate mound continue to rise within the refuse to such an elevation that

leachate seeps may occur at surface, a toe drain collection system and/or leachate

extraction wells would be installed within the refuse.

7.5 CONTAMINATING LIFE SPAN

Under normal conditions the source concentration of landfill leachate will diminish with

time through various processes, eventually reaching levels that are no longer a source of

contamination for the Site. The contaminating life span of a landfill is the time required

for the leachate concentration to decrease to regulatory defined quality objectives. The

time requirements to reach those objectives will depend on the initial source

31807 (13) 39 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


concentration of the leachate and the half-life of the various parameters within the

leachate.

31807 (13) 40 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


8.0 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.1 GENERAL

The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the Site has been developed in

accordance with the design requirements of O. Reg. 232/98. The primary objectives of

the SWMP are to:

• convey and direct surface water runoff from the landfill area;

• provide storage capacity within the storm water management facilities;

• promote groundwater recharge;

• preserve the natural hydrologic cycle;

• control surface water runoff from the Site into the active disposal areas in order to

minimize surface water contacting refuse; and

• minimize potential for on-Site erosion and sediment loading to down stream water

courses.

The SWMP will be used in support for of the Application to amend the existing C of A

Sewage No. 3-0178-94-006 issued under Section 53 of the OWRA to obtain approval for

implementation of the surface water management works.

The SWMP hydrologic analysis was completed to calculate peak flows and runoff

volumes from the Site under various storm event conditions. The computer model

MIDUSS 4.72 (Smith, 1993) was used to complete the hydrologic modelling. The

modelling was used to provide a basis for identifying and sizing appropriate surface

water management features. Model input parameters include design storms,

topographic features (drainage area, flow length, slope, roughness), soil parameters

(antecedent moisture conditions, infiltration capacity), ground cover conditions, and

drainage paths.

The 2, 5, 10, 25 and 100-year storm events were considered in the hydrologic modelling

to provide a design basis for on-Site surface water management features. The a, b, and c

parameters for each of these storm events are summarized in Table 8.1. Two infiltration

ponds are proposed to handle surface runoff from the landfill site. In keeping with

standard engineering practice, the basins were designed to have capacity for the surface

runoff from the 100-year storm. The peak runoff flows associated with the 100-year

storm will be conveyed on Site within the existing and proposed ditches. Only under

31807 (13) 41 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


extreme storm events beyond the 100-Year storm event will surface runoff be discharged

from either pond via emergency overflow weirs.

8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

8.2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS

The Site is part of the Parry Sound Watershed. All surface water in the area of the Site

eventually discharges to the Seguin River, which is the largest regional drainage feature.

The Seguin River flows west to Mountain Basin and Mill Lake eventually discharging to

Parry Sound and Georgian Bay.

There are no natural surface water bodies or drainage features identified on the Site.

Several small lakes, creeks and wetlands are located within one kilometre of the Site

boundaries, including Agnes Lake, Cramadog Lake, Little Cramadog Lake, and the

Oxley Wetland, all of which ultimately discharge to the Seguin River.

The Landfill is located at a regional topographic high point. This highpoint comprises a

surface watershed divide, and surface water runoff drains radially out from the lined

landfill area in all directions as shown on Figure 2.3. There are four surface water

catchment areas that include surface water drainage from the original landfill footprint

and the approved lined landfill. The four catchment areas that include surface water

drainage from the Site are the Seguin Lake, Front Pit, Cramadog Lake, and Oxley

Wetland Catchment Areas as shown on Figure 2.1.

The surface water generated from the final covered portion of the Existing Landfill is

collected by a perimeter ditch and piping system and conveyed to an infiltration pond

located northwest of the lined landfill. Surface water conveyed to the pond is allowed to

infiltrate into the groundwater regime or during storm events overflow into a naturally

occurring swale that eventually discharges to the Seguin Lake.

Surface water from the southeastern portion of the Site is conveyed to the Front Pit by a

combination of overland flow and surface water ditches. Due to historic aggregate

extraction there is no outlet for surface water in this catchment area, and as such all

surface water in this area infiltrates into the groundwater regime. As shown on Figure 3

groundwater flow beneath the Front Pit contributes to the Little Cramadog Lake and the

Oxley Wetland flow paths, eventually discharging to the Seguin River.

31807 (13) 42 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Surface water from the eastern portion of the Site and the Sherwin Property is conveyed

by overland flow and natural drainage swales to the roadside ditch on the north side of

McDougall Road. Surface water from the north roadside ditch is conveyed by four

culverts under the road into the Oxley Wetland. Water from the Oxley Wetland is

conveyed to the Seguin River by a culvert under McDougall road at the north end of the

wetland. Water also flows via a combination of man-made and natural ditches and

swales across a portion of the Sherwin Property to the Seguin River.

8.3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The following sections describe the storm water management measures proposed to

manage surface runoff from the Site.

The post closure conditions hydrologic model was developed to calculate the runoff

conditions that will prevail following closure of the Site and design the surface water

management features necessary to compensate for these changes in the hydrologic

regime. The internal ditch located along the perimeter of the landfill area at the toe of

the slopes will direct runoff to the ponds. Under post closure conditions two infiltration

basins are proposed one at the southeast portion of the Site within the Front Pit and

Oxley Wetland flow path and one in the northwest portion of the Site replacing the

existing infiltration pond in the Seguin Lake Catchment Area. The proposed infiltration

ponds will have sufficient storage capacity to retain and infiltrate the surface runoff

associated with the 100-Year storm event. An armoured overflow weir and outlet

channel is proposed in each pond to prevent erosion in the event of overtopping.

As presented in Figure 8.1, seven catchment areas were delineated to represent the

drainage from the landfill under Post-Closure conditions. A flow schematic

representing the post closure conditions hydrologic model is presented on Figure 8.2.

The post closure conditions subcatchment parameters used in the hydrologic model are

summarized in Table 8.2. A copy of the post closure conditions hydrologic modelling

output is provided in Appendix G.

8.3.1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGIC MODEL

The hydrologic model was used to calculate peak flow rates and runoff volumes for the

2, 5, 10, 25 and 100-Year design storm events. The 2 and 5-Year storms were used to

calculate the response of the stormwater management system to minor storm events.

The 25 and 100-Year storms were used to calculate the response of the stormwater

31807 (13) 43 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


management system to major storm events. Tables 8.3 and 8.4 provide a summary of the

calculated peak flows from the Site and summaries of the calculated runoff volumes

from the Landfill catchment areas respectively. The proposed design will retain all

surface runoff associated with the considered design storm events and therefore meets

the MOE criteria.

Using the flows calculated in the post closure conditions hydrologic model, the

perimeter ditches and on Site culverts were designed accordingly. A copy of the design

calculations supporting these drainage features is provided in Appendix G.

8.3.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Drawing No. C-07 (Appendix L) presents the proposed storm water management plan

features. The expanded stormwater management system is proposed to consist of one

drainage culvert 14.2 m in length and 1050 mm diameter, 600 m of ditches and two

infiltration basins having a total capacity of 3,112 m 3 . Design parameters for existing

and proposed ditches are presented in Table 8.5. Hydraulic calculations for the

conveyance system and infiltration ponds are presented in Appendix G.

8.3.2.1 EXPANSION CELL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

The series of eastern perimeter ditches representing a length of 600 m will convey

surface runoff from the Expansion Cell to a 1050 mm diameter corrugated metal pipe

culvert, where it will be conveyed to the infiltration pond (Pond 1) located in the Front

Pit catchment within the Oxley Wetland flow path. The proposed drainage swales will

be constructed with 3H:1V side slopes, a minimum depth of 0.8 m, and a longitudinal

slope of 0.55 to 0.86%.

The infiltration pond (Pond 1) is proposed to be approximately 75 m in length by 25 m in

width with 3H:1V side slopes. The minimum infiltration area is 1,817 m 2 with 0.6 m of

normal operation depth and a design depth of 1.2 m providing approximately 1,774 m 3

of temporary retention storage. Overflow from the Pond 1 will discharge via an

overflow weir to the Front Pit and infiltrate into the groundwater regime. Groundwater

flow beneath the Front Pit contributes to the Little Cramadog Lake and the Oxley

Wetland flow paths, eventually discharging to the Seguin River.

31807 (13) 44 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


8.3.2.2 EXISTING LANDFILL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

The existing perimeter ditches surround the entire existing Landfill and drain to a set of

storm sewer culverts and eventually to the existing infiltration pond (Pond 2) located in

the northwest portion of the Site within the Seguin Lake flow path. The drainage swales

are triangular and have a total length of 500 m. The drainage swales are riprap lined to

minimize the potential for erosion to occur as calculated velocities in the ditches under

various storm events exceed 1.5 m/s. The remaining ditches have a vegetative cover to

prevent erosion and enhance infiltration and sediment control. The drainage swales

have 3H:1V side slopes, a minimum depth of 1.0 m, and a longitudinal slope of 0.75%.

Pond 2 will be reconstructed to be approximately 65 m in length by 25 m in width with

3H:1V side slopes. The minimum area required to facilitate infiltration is 1,425 m 2 with a

normal operating depth of 0.6 m and a 1.2 m design depth. At 0.6 m depth, the basin

provides approximately 1,368 m 3 of retention storage. Overflow from the Pond 2 will

discharge via an overflow weir to the natural drainage swale eventually discharging to

Seguin Lake.

8.3.2.3 INFILTRATION BASINS

Infiltration basins are stormwater runoff impoundments designed to capture and retain

surface runoff and subsequently infiltrate it into the ground over a period of time. The

infiltration basins will provide peak discharge, volume, and water quality control for all

surface runoff from storm events up to the 100-year storm. The infiltration basins will

reduce the volume of runoff, remove many pollutants and provide stream base flow and

regional groundwater recharge. The advantages of the use of infiltration basins include:

• reduction of surface runoff volume from landfill site;

• effective removal of fine sediment, trace metals and bacteria;

• reduction of downstream flooding risk; and

• groundwater recharge to support base flow in nearby streams.

8.3.2.4 PRE-TREATMENT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF

Infiltration basins are susceptible to high failure rates due to clogging from sediments

and therefore pre-treatment of surface runoff draining to the basins is required to

remove as much suspended sediment from the runoff as possible prior to discharge to

31807 (13) 45 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


the basin. Rock check dams will be installed in the perimeter ditches to pre-treat surface

runoff. The check dams will capture larger sediment particles and be easier to maintain

than the basin itself thereby increasing the time required between maintenance events in

the infiltration basins.

8.3.2.5 INFLOW AND OVERFLOW

To prevent incoming flow velocities from reaching erosive levels, which can scour the

basin floor, inlet pipes and culverts to the basin will be stabilized. Culverts draining to

the basin are proposed to terminate in broad rip rap aprons, which will disperse the

runoff more evenly over the basin surface to promote better infiltration. Detailed design

calculations for the riprap aprons are presented in Appendix G.

Emergency overflow weirs are proposed to convey runoff from large storms without

damage to the structure.

8.3.2.6 INFILTRATION BASIN MAINTENANCE

Routine and non-routine maintenance is required to keep infiltration basins operating

effectively. Pre-treatment devices associated with basins should be inspected and

cleaned at least twice a year or when the sediment capture capacity is reduced by one

third, whichever occurs more frequently. The infiltration basins should be inspected

following major storms, especially in the first few months after construction.

Maintenance is necessary if stormwater remains in the system beyond the design

drawdown time (24 hours). Periodic maintenance includes removal of debris, mowing

the sides, and re-vegetating eroded or barren areas. If mowed, grass clippings should be

removed to prevent clogging of the surface. The basins were designed to have 3H:1V

side slopes to help sustain vegetation, permit access for maintenance, and ensure public

safety and ease of mowing.

Occasionally, non-routine maintenance or basin rehabilitation may be required. This

may include removal of accumulated sediment and scarification of the basin floor.

Sediment removal should be performed only when the soil surface is very dry to avoid

compaction of the basin bottom. It is important to avoid the use of herbicides and

fertilizers on grassed portions of the infiltration basin since these applications can

directly contribute undesirable pollutants in nearby waterways.

31807 (13) 46 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


8.3.2.7 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN

The purpose of erosion and sediment controls are to minimize the potential release of

pollutants and specifically sediments directly or indirectly into the receiving waters. To

achieve this objective, an erosion and sediment control plan will be established and

implemented during construction. These controls may include but not be limited to

temporary detention basins, rock check dams, straw bale check dams, and filter media.

During construction activities, visual monitoring will be conducted regularly and within

24 hours of any rainfall event of 12 mm or more. Monitoring shall consist of visual

observation for the effectiveness of the sediment and erosion controls and sediment

migration off-Site. Sediment traps shall be inspected to ensure that they have been

properly installed and continue to function as designed. Any observed releases of

sediment into receiving waters or adjacent lands shall be removed and returned to the

Site prior to significant impact to those areas. Accumulated sediments in any capture

measures shall be removed once the control’s capture capacity has been reduced by one

third and used on the landfill as daily cover. Following closure of the Site, sediment

captured in the sediment controls shall continue to be removed as specified, however,

the removed material shall be used as final cover material and seeded immediately upon

placement on the landfill cap.

Construction inspections shall be conducted until such time as the ponds and ditches

have been constructed and vegetation has established itself to a density equivalent to

70 percent of the background native vegetation density. It is anticipated that the

plantings will require one full growing season to fully grow in. An additional two

growing seasons are anticipated to be required to achieve 100 percent density as native

seed stock will be used to stabilize the Site and two seasons of renewal will be required

to fully vegetate and facilitate complete stabilization of the Site.

Permanent monitoring at the Site shall be consistent with the existing monitoring

program.

8.4 FLOOD RISK

The main concerns with respect to flood risk are related to safety and damage. All

surface water runoff is redirected away from the landfill footprint, therefore there is

minimal risk of impact from the landfill to the surrounding area. As the landfill is the

topographic high region in this area, there is only minimal risk for flooding in the

vicinity of the Landfill.

31807 (13) 47 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The proposed infiltration ponds will assist in reducing the flood risk to off-Site areas.

Additionally, all proposed storm water management facilities have been designed to

convey and store the total volume of runoff associated with the 100-Year storm event.

8.5 WATER QUANTITY

Limited infiltration will be available in areas where a final cover is proposed and runoff

from these areas is high. Proposed conditions incorporate one additional pond and

relocation and upgrading of the existing pond. Pond 2 will service the Existing Landfill.

The proposed infiltration pond, Pond 1, will serve the Expansion Cell. The ponds will

have sufficient storage capacity to retain the surface runoff from a 100-Year storm event.

8.6 WATER QUALITY

The SWMP design presents measures to control surface water such that there is no

detrimental impact to the off Site environment. Effective control of storm water during

the operational life of the landfill is important due to the high erosion and sediment

loading associated with bare soil conditions and the potential risk of water

contamination from site operations.

Sediment removal will be performed as required to remove sediments from the surface

runoff that may reduce the infiltration capacity of the ponds. When operational, the

infiltration ponds will function to filter water that will recharge the groundwater

aquifer.

The two ponds will remain following closure of the Site. These ponds will provide a

total storage capacity of approximately 3,112 m 3 .

8.7 CONCLUSION

The storm water management measures presented are sufficient to meet the objectives to

control the water quantity and quality discharged from the Site.

All on-Site ditches around the perimeter of the landfill are designed to convey the flow

associated with the 100-Year storm. Grass and rip rap channel linings are proposed to

enhance sediment and erosion control.

31807 (13) 48 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The proposed storm water management system incorporates two infiltration basins.

The Pond 1 located in the Oxley Wetland flow path will be utilized to capture and treat

surface runoff from the eastern portion of the site and Expansion Cell. Pond 2 located in

the Seguin Lake flow path will be utilized to capture and treat surface runoff from the

western portions of the Site, and the Existing Landfill. Ponds 1 and 2 will

infiltrate/detain flows to provide sediment control and groundwater recharge. The

existing Pond is proposed to be decommissioned and replaced with Pond 2.

Each pond is designed to retain and infiltrate flow from the 100-Year storm event. Only

under extreme storm events beyond the 100-Year storm event, however, will surface

runoff be discharged from either pond via emergency overflow weirs. The process of

infiltration from the two ponds will improve the quality of the surface runoff before

recharging the groundwater aquifer. Therefore it is anticipated that receiving waters

will not be adversely impacted by the changes proposed for the Site.

31807 (13) 49 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


9.0 LANDFILL GAS ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

9.1 LANDFILL GAS ASSESSMENT

9.1.1 LANDFILL GAS

Landfill gas (LFG) is produced by the biological decomposition of wastes placed in a

landfill. LFG composition is highly variable and depends upon a number of site-specific

conditions including solid waste composition, density, moisture content, and age. The

specific composition of LFG varies significantly from landfill to landfill and even from

place to place within a single landfill. However, LFG is typically comprised of methane

(approximately 50 percent by volume) and carbon dioxide (approximately 50 percent by

volume). LFG may also contain nitrogen (N 2 ), oxygen (O 2 ), and trace quantities of other

gases (such as hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), mercaptans, etc.). In addition to the above

methane-related LFG constituents, non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as

vinyl chloride, may also be generated and emitted at a landfill.

Due to its composition, the presence of LFG may create explosive, suffocating, and toxic

conditions. LFG management may be required to control potential impacts relating to

the release of LFG to the atmosphere and migration of LFG through the soil surrounding

the Site.

The release of LFG into the air may contribute to odours in the vicinity of the Site and

addition of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. LFG odours are primarily a result

of the presence of hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans. These compounds may be detected

by sense of smell at very low concentrations (0.005 and 0.001 parts per million for

hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans, respectively). It is generally recognized that the

impacts related to these compounds are nuisance odours.

Migration of LFG through the soil poses two primary concerns that are related to the

build-up of gases within or below structures near the landfill site. Firstly, accumulation

of LFG in a subsurface structure (i.e., basement, buried chambers, etc.) may expose those

required to enter the structure, to an oxygen deficient environment, which may be

created by the presence of LFG. Secondly, accumulation of LFG in low-lying areas or

within buildings introduces the risk of an explosion if a source of ignition is present.

31807 (13) 50 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


9.1.2 LANDFILL GAS PRODUCTION

The production rate and the total volume of LFG that will be generated in a landfill,

depends primarily on mass of refuse with several other factors including organic

content, age of refuse, and moisture content influencing the production process.

Landfill operations affecting production of LFG include:

• changes in waste composition accepted at the landfill over time, primarily due to

changes in biodegradable content;

• landfill operations that change the quantity of moisture in the waste mass; and

• significant changes in total waste tonnage accepted at the landfill over the life of the

site.

The evaluation of potential LFG emissions from the Site was conducted in accordance

with the MOE guidance document entitled "Interim Guide to Estimate and Assess

Landfill Air Impacts", October 1992 (Interim Guide).

There are numerous models available for estimating rates of production of LFG.

Accepted industry standard models for estimating rates of LFG production are generally

first order kinetic models, which rely on a number of basic assumptions regarding

site-specific conditions. These models are used to predict the variation of LFG

generation rates with a time for a typical unit mass of solid waste. The general rate

curve is then applied to records (or projections) of solid waste filling at a site to produce

an estimate of the site’s LFG production over time.

A first order decay model (Scholl Canyon) was adopted by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under New Source Performance Standards

and Emission Guidelines (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills. The Tier 1

approach of the NSPS model utilizes mathematical modelling with conservatively high

default input parameters to estimate the non-methanogenic organic compound (NMOC)

emissions from MSW landfills.

The NSPS model has several input parameters to estimate LFG emissions. The model

uses the decay constant (k = 0.04 /year), the methane generation potential (LoCH4 = 125

m 3 /tonnes), and waste tonnage as input parameters to estimate LFG production rates.

The Site has two landfill areas: the existing Landfill and the Expansion Cell. The LFG

production rates from these areas were considered individually due to the varying

operating parameters of each area.

31807 (13) 51 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The model was run for the Existing Landfill utilizing the following assumptions:

• daily fill rate of up to 17 tonnes of typical municipal solid waste;

• total site landfill capacity (including daily cover) of 329,600 m 3 ; and

• estimated waste disposal quantities of 6,254 tonnes per year and 187,626 tonnes total.

As shown on Figure 9.1, the estimated peak LFG production from the existing Landfill at

the assumed scenario is approximately 124.0 m 3 /hr (73 cubic feet per minute [cfm]) in

the year 2006.

The model was run for the Expansion Cell utilizing the following assumptions:

• daily fill rate of up to 45 tonnes of typical municipal solid waste;

• total site landfill capacity (including daily cover) of 678,738 m 3 ; and

• estimated waste disposal quantities of 16,290 tonnes per year and 407,243 tonnes

total.

As shown on Figure 9.2, the estimated peak LFG production for the proposed landfill

expansion at the assumed scenario is approximately 293.9 m 3 /hr (173 cfm) in the year

2031.

Therefore, the cumulative effect of the two landfilled areas at the assumed scenario is

estimated to peak at approximately 339.8 m 3 /hr (200 cfm) in the year 2031 as shown on

Figure 9.3.

Generally, the peak LFG production occurs within a couple of years after Site closure.

Based on the factors affecting the production of LFG at the McDougall Landfill Site

discussed previously, it is not expected that LFG production will be higher than that

presented above.

9.1.3 ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF LANDFILL GAS

Potential LFG emissions of particular interest include NMOCs and odours. The LFG

emission estimate provided in Section 9.1.2 was used to assess potential NMOCs and

odour emissions from the Site.

31807 (13) 52 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


9.1.3.1 ESTIMATED NMOC EMISSION RATES

NMOCs are typically found in LFG in trace quantities and their concentrations vary

from site to site. Composition data is not available for the McDougall Landfill Site,

however, LFG data typical of that found in landfills in Ontario is suitable for use in this

application. Data was obtained from several Ontario and selected USEPA landfills and

the 95% upper confidence limit of mean value (UCL) concentrations of the NMOCs were

used. The landfills selected for the characterization of the LFG are Bensfort Road

Landfill, Cambridge Landfill, Greenlane Landfill, Keele Valley Landfill, Vaughan

Landfill, Waterloo Landfill, and selected USEPA landfills. The concentration data is

summarized in Tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 for the existing cells, the proposed cells, and the

total landfill area respectively.

9.1.3.2 ODOURS

Odour at the Site may originate from the following sources:

• the placement of freshly collected waste;

• the emission of LFG; and

• small cracks in the cover.

In order for odour to be noticed by a person, odour must be present at a sufficient

concentration and for a finite period of time. An odour unit (OU) is the quantity of an

odourous substance which, when dispersed in one m 3 of clean air, becomes detectable

by 50 percent of a population of 'normal' human observations. The Interim Guide

recommends a default LFG odour concentration of 10,000 (OU/m 3 ) and suggests an

odour detection limit of 1 OU/m 3 over 10 minutes at the point of reception.

An odour impact assessment will be prepared if odours become problematic at the Site.

9.1.4 SUBSURFACE MIGRATION OF LANDFILL GAS

The assessment of the LFG migration potential requires a basic understanding of the

fundamentals and processes involved in the decomposition of solid waste. Depending

upon the proportions of the two major constituents of LFG (CO 2

and CH 4

), it can either

be lighter or heavier than air and therefore may accumulate in structures or low-lying

areas. Should there be a continuous source of LFG, the hazard may be significant given

31807 (13) 53 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


that methane is explosive in the range between approximately 5 to 15 percent by volume

in air.

Medium to coarse-grained soils tend to act as preferential pathways for migration of

LFG while fine grained, clayey or water bearing soils tend to impede the movement of

LFG. Granular bedding materials and pipelines in underground service corridors may

also provide preferential pathways for LFG migration.

In the context of LFG migration, trigger levels are established based on an exceedance of

a specified concentration of combustible gas. The following migration trigger levels are

based on O.Reg. 232/98 (under part V of the Environmental Protection Act). The criteria

require that the following be met:

• less than 2.5 percent methane gas in the subsurface at the property boundary;

• less than 1.0 percent methane in an on-site building, or its foundation; and

• less than 0.05 percent methane (i.e., not present) in a building, or its foundation,

which is located off-site.

Subsurface migration potential of LFG at the Site are low due to:

• low LFG production indicating minimal quantities of gas available to migrate and

minimal in-refuse gas pressures which provide the driving force for migrating LFG;

and

• base and side slopes of the landfill consisting of an engineered composite liner that

will inhibit LFG migration.

The Site geology, hydrogeology, and the proposed engineering features demonstrate

low potential for migration of landfill gas below land surface to adjacent or off-Site

properties or into buildings or enclosed structures located on-Site or off-Site.

9.2 LANDFILL GAS MANAGMENT

9.2.1 LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION

O.Reg. 232/98 requires mandatory collection of LFG for sites exceeding 3,000,000 m 3

waste disposal capacity. As such, active LFG collection at the McDougall Landfill Site is

not considered necessary as:

31807 (13) 54 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


• the total solid waste capacity of the Site is set at 1,008,493 m 3 , which is significantly

below the threshold of 3,000,000 m 3 set out in the MOE Landfill Standards;

• LFG emissions are estimated to be low based on the production assessment

described in Section 9.1.2; and

• anticipated landfill operational practices will not significantly enhance atmospheric

emissions of LFG.

Based on the landfill gas production assessment presented in Section 9.1.2, and the age

and relative small size of the Site, it is CRA's opinion that emissions to the atmosphere

are not an issue for further consideration.

It is noted that this does not preclude the landfill operator from voluntarily pursuing

active LFG collection for the purpose of obtaining "greenhouse gas" credits or utilizing

the energy content of the LFG, should it become economically feasible in the future.

9.2.2 LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION MONITORING

As discussed above, it is not anticipated that there will be a potential for migration of

landfill gas. Since there is no significant potential for landfill gas to migrate, a LFG

migration monitoring program is not proposed at this time.

However, the potential for migration of LFG through buried utility or service lines in the

area of the leachate collection system at the Site is of concern. Based on this concern, it is

recommended that LFG monitoring be implemented in on-site buildings. To monitor

for the potential presence of combustible gas within each building envelope, an ambient

combustible gas detection system is recommended.

9.2.3 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

To avoid the hazards posed by LFG all personnel must exercise extreme care. Due to the

potential explosion hazard, no smoking, open flames, or potentially sparking activity

should be permitted in areas where LFG may be present. Due to the potentially harmful

compounds which may be present in LFG and condensate (moisture condensed from

LFG), care should be taken to avoid inhalation of raw LFG and to avoid contact of skin

or mucous membranes with condensate.

31807 (13) 55 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


On-Site buildings will be provided with methane gas monitoring devices with detection

alarms tied to the building ventilation system, and confined space protocols will be

implemented for potential confined spaces. Additionally, all on-Site structures and

chambers including leachate collection system access chambers will be signed for

potential LFG hazards.

9.2.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

The contingency measures outlined are presented in the event of detection of methane at

one or more of the on-Site building monitoring locations. Prior to implementation of a

contingency measure a detailed trigger level assessment of the landfill gas migration

will be conducted.

Based on the results of the trigger level assessment, the need for installation of a passive

barrier system would be determined.

A passive barrier system would include:

• installation of geomembrane “keyed” into the groundwater table to prevent

migration of gas beyond the barrier;

• installation of a granular trench to provide a collection gallery for passive venting to

the atmosphere; and

• installation of gas vent stacks to provide a conduit for passive landfill gas venting.

The installation of passive gas vents through the final cover soils, once installed, may

also be required. The installation of passive gas vents will:

• maintain the integrity of the final cover soils;

• reduce the potential for subsurface horizontal migration; and

• allow for additional monitoring to evaluate the status of gas generation within the

landfill.

The passive gas vents would be installed along the top center ridge of the final contours

proposed for the Site where the final cover could become compromised from the

uncontrolled discharge of LFG.

31807 (13) 56 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Passive venting systems rely on slightly positive (relative to atmospheric) pressure of

gas migrating through the soil/refuse to induce exhaust or gas to the atmosphere. If

post-construction LFG monitoring indicates the need for enhanced LFG extraction, gas

vent wind turbines will be installed on each gas vent.

9.2.5 CONTAMINATING LIFE SPAN

Generally, the peak LFG production occurs within a couple of years after Site closure

and can continue for approximately 50 years, depending on the site–specific conditions

including solid waste composition, density, moisture content, and age. Based on the

factors affecting the production of LFG at the McDougall Landfill Site discussed

previously, LFG production is expected to peak in 2031, at the time of Site Closure.

31807 (13) 57 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


10.0 SITE FACILITIES

10.1 SITE FENCING

Site access is controlled via a main access road off of McDougall Road as shown on

Drawing No. C-01. The main entrance gate is currently locked outside of normal

operating hours to prohibit vehicle entrance and uncontrolled disposal when the Site is

closed. A 1.2 m high post and wire fence exists along a portion of the southern property

boundary adjacent to McDougall Road. With the existing fencing and vertical grade

change along McDougall Road and the Site, additional fencing for Site security along

McDougall Road is not required. Additional fencing and/or guardrails are provided

along a portion of the western property boundary and northwest of the Existing

Landfill.

10.2 GATE HOUSE

An existing office trailer (gate house) is located on the southern portion of the Site off of

the main access road as shown on Drawing No. C-01. With construction of the

Expansion Cell a new scale house will be constructed along the Site perimeter road as

presented on Drawing C-03. The building will also house the iron-reduction and

leachate treatment system facility.

10.3 WEIGH SCALE

The existing weigh scale is located opposite the existing gatehouse as shown on

Drawing C-01. The weigh scale will be relocated opposite the new scale house once

constructed. The weigh scale will be used to measure the weight of all waste haulage

vehicles entering and leaving the Site.

10.4 MATERIAL RECYCING AREA

All waste received at the Site is currently examined for materials which may be diverted

from the landfill. Items currently diverted from the landfill include scrap metal, white

goods, clean wood waste, propane tanks, and tires. As previously discussed in

Section 2.7, waste diversion activities including blue box recycling are carried out prior

to waste arriving at the Site. As such blue box recycling is not carried out at the Site.

31807 (13) 58 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Scrap metal, white goods and propane tank collection areas are located along the

western portion of the site, south of the existing Landfill. Wood and brush are currently

stockpiled north of the existing Landfill as shown on Drawing C-01. With construction

of the Expansion Cell the wood and brush stockpile area will be relocated to the

southwest portion of the Site and the existing wood/brush area will be used for

stockpiling of soils for use in landfill operations. Wood and brush is chipped and used

in landfilling operations.

Bins may also be established in the vicinity of the scale house to accommodate receipt of

small quantities of recycling and/or waste by the public as shown on Drawing C-03.

10.5 SITE ROADS

The existing Site access road network is shown on Drawing No. C-01. Access to the Site

is via the main access road off of McDougall Road. The Site entrance road leads to the

scale house and connects to the perimeter roads providing access to the active areas of

the landfill, material recycling area, and material stockpile area.

Under long-term operation of the Site, three types of roadways will be utilized. The

roadway types are described as follows:

Site access road;

• perimeter Site maintenance road; and

• secondary haul road.

The existing Site access road will continue to be utilized and will continue to provide

access to the entire Site under long-term operation of the Site. This road will continue to

be maintained with a granular surface.

The combination of the main Site access road and extension of the perimeter Site

maintenance roads will allow for complete access around the landfill area. The

perimeter Site roads will also allow for access to the storm water management ponds for

maintenance. A typical cross-section of the perimeter Site maintenance road is provided

on Drawing No. C-10 (Appendix L).

Secondary haul roads will be constructed as required to access the working face(s) and

working area(s) of the landfill. Secondary haul roads will provide for hauling refuse

and daily cover soil to the active disposal face.

31807 (13) 59 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


10.6 SIGNS

A sign is posted at the main entrance to the Site, which displays prominently the

following:

• name of the Site;

• operating authority;

Site Provisional Certificate of Approval Number;

• hours of operation; and

• phone number for reporting emergencies during non-operating hours.

Miscellaneous signs including Stop, All Vehicles Report to Office, and No Dumping or

Littering are posted in appropriate locations throughout the Site.

Under the long-term operation of the Site, the need for additional signage will be

reviewed from time to time by landfill staff for adequacy and implementation as

required.

10.7 SITE EQUIPMENT

Adequate equipment will be maintained at the Site to ensure that operational

requirements will be met. The equipment currently used at the Site, which will continue

to be used during long-term operation of the Site is summarized below.

Equipment

Caterpillar 816B Landfill

Compactor

Operations

• spreading and compacting of landfill materials

and cover soils

Case 721C Loader • construction of roads and SWM works

• snow removal

• hauling of material used for cover soils and

miscellaneous construction works

D3x1 Caterpillar Bulldozer • grading of cover soils

• construction of roads and SWM works

John Deere Gator HPX 4x4 • litter control and Site inspections

Ford L8000 Tandem Tanker • leachate pumping and haulage

31807 (13) 60 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Equipment used for Site construction activities is typically provided by a third party

retained through tendering process. The existing Site equipment will be adequate for

the proposed landfill expansion at the estimated landfilling rates. The need for

additional or replacement equipment will be assessed on an as required basis.

10.8 SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING

A Visual Impact Assessment of the Site was conducted to provide an assessment of

potential visual impacts that may result from the operation of the Landfill. The

assessment was undertaken in accordance with the O. Reg. 232/98, Item 6, (2) ( c )(xv).

As previously noted, the Site abuts an aggregate pit to the west, undeveloped land to the

north and a mixture of undeveloped land and residential properties to the east and

south, with McDougall road parallel to the southern property boundary as shown on

Drawing C-02. As such, the visual impact assessment involved a visual evaluation of the

Site from the quarry west of the Site and five locations along McDougall Road.

The Visual Impact Assessment notes that high visibility exists from the quarry adjacent

to the west of the Site. Visibility from McDougall Road was noted as low at all five

locations.

Although the landfill is visually seen from the adjacent quarry, due to the nature of the

quarry operations, the landfill does not provide a visual impact on the property that

would require measures to be undertaken to mitigate the visual impact.

As such requirements for visual screening along McDougall Road are not required.

Requirements for further landscaping will be assessed as part of the End Use and Site

Closure Plan to be prepared for the Site as discussed in Section 2.9.

A copy of the technical memorandum documenting the Visual Impact Assessment is

provided in Appendix H.

31807 (13) 61 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


11.0 SITE OPERATION

11.1 SITE SUPERVISION

The McDougall Landfill Site is operated by the Municipality of McDougall. Adequate

manpower will continue to be maintained at the Site to ensure that operational

requirements are satisfactorily met. Two full-time employees are on Site from April 1 st

to November 1 st and one full-time employee is on Site for the remainder of the year.

Additionally one to two students work at the Site from May to August. In general, these

employees are responsible for accepting and recording waste loads, rejecting and

recording waste loads rejected, segregation, stockpiling and placement of waste,

placement of waste cover, record keeping, and site inspection and house keeping

including collection of wind blown litter along McDougall Road.

Site personnel are also responsible for maintaining environmental controls including

dust, litter, odour, and noise control measures on an as required basis.

The Site operator will ensure that all landfill employees are adequately trained with

respect to the technical requirements for the operation of the landfill. Employees are

trained in Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) and in daily

operation of the landfill, including how to safely operate all landfilling equipment.

11.2 HOURS OF OPERATION

At the present time, the Site operates from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday

and Saturday from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM from May 1 st to Labour Day Weekend and one

Saturday per month for the rest of the year. Equipment normally operates at the Site up

to two hours before and after the hours of operation to complete the required

maintenance and cover soil placement operations. Leachate haulage occurs between

7:00 am and 7:00 pm, with provisions for emergency haulage 24 hours per day 7 days

per week.

11.3 SITE SECURITY

As discussed in Section 11.1, one to two dedicated employees are present at the Site

during operating hours, depending on the time of year. These dedicated employees

maintain Site security and ensure that all persons entering the Site are authorized to do

so.

31807 (13) 62 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The main access gate will be locked outside of normal operating hours to prohibit

vehicle entrance and uncontrolled disposal when the Site is closed.

11.4 INSPECTION, COMPLAINTS, AND RECORD KEEPING

Inspection of the Site conditions and operations are conducted by landfill personnel to

verify that nuisance factors associated with housekeeping procedures, such as dust,

litter, odour, and noise are under control, thereby preventing routine operational

nuisances from developing into more serious environmental problems. If any

housekeeping or nuisance problems are observed, the need for and type of corrective

action(s) required to resolve the problems will be implemented as soon as possible after

identification.

Operation complaints received by landfill personnel will be documented on a Landfill

Complaint Form, which records the information pertaining to the complaint, a

description of the complaint, and the appropriate response/action undertaken or carried

out to address the complaint. The landfill personnel will undertake corrective action(s)

as soon as possible after identification of need. A copy of the Landfill Complaint Form

is provided in Appendix I.

In addition to the above, the landfill personnel will ensure that all material entering the

Site is weighed and recorded. The quantity and type of waste accepted at the site is

recorded electronically.

11.5 DUST CONTROL

Dust generation is common at most landfill sites due to the handling of soils and

movement of vehicles along gravel and dirt roads. Dust impacts typically result from

landfill traffic, landfill operations, soil borrow operations, and wind erosion. Dust in the

vicinity of a landfill site should not be problematic under normal conditions and is

usually controllable under extreme conditions.

Dust on Site will be controlled by applying water or calcium chloride to the travelled

areas to ensure dust is kept to a bare minimum. No complaints of dust nuisances have

been received by landfill personnel.

31807 (13) 63 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


Dust impacts will be managed by utilizing suitable road construction materials and

completing routine road maintenance.

Should dust become problematic at the Site, the following control measures will be

implemented:

• lower vehicle speeds;

• reduce landfill activities during periods of high wind;

• curtail soil hauling activities during periods of high wind; and

• apply dust suppressant(s) (i.e. water or calcium chloride) more frequently to Site

roadways, soil borrow areas, and if required, to the active disposal area.

11.6 LITTER CONTROL

Preventative litter control measures are taken to minimize the blowing of debris from

the active area of the landfill. Any litter, which is observed around the Site, is picked

up on a regular basis to prevent litter from becoming problematic. Additional staff is

hired to keep the site and surrounding area clean, particularly in the spring and

summer.

To ensure that litter does not become problematic at the Site during normal or extremely

windy conditions, the following control measures will be implemented:

• all vehicular traffic transporting refuse to and around the Site will be adequately

loaded and tarped, as necessary, to prevent litter from blowing out of the vehicle;

• daily cover soils will be placed over the working face of the landfill in order to

minimize the blowing of debris; and

• the active face of the landfill will be kept to a minimum. This may be accomplished

by placing daily cover soils over a portion of the active face, should windy

conditions warrant this action.

11.7 NOISE CONTROL

A Noise Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with the MOE October 1998

Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites (Landfill Standards). A copy of the technical

memorandum documenting the assessment is provided in Appendix J.

31807 (13) 64 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


The Landfill Standards provide the following sound level limits for a point of reception:

• 45 dBA in any hour of the night, 7:00 PM. to 7:00 AM.; and

• 55 dBA in any hour of the day, 7:00 AM. to 7:00 PM., or less than or equal to

background if background is greater than 55 dBA.

The nearest residential receptor is the Stage/Sherwin property located southwest of the

landfill. However, since this property is blocked visually by existing topography of

more than 10 m in elevation change and by dense vegetation, the noise assessment was

undertaken for the next closest resident (Oxley property) located east of the Site.

Off-Site noise impacts at the Oxley residential receptor was evaluated for the operation

of Site equipment. The predicted noise levels at the Oxley residential receptor was

calculated using reference sound levels and estimated distances to the residential

receptor.

The worst case noise impact for the operation of Site equipment is anticipated to occur

when all equipment is being operated and the leachate pumping facility is active.

Should this situation occur the worst case noise level at the residential receptor will be

53.3 dBA which is below the MOE's daytime noise level criteria of 55 dBA. Even with

the very conservative modelling assumptions, the Site equipment is not anticipated to

have any noise impacts at residential receptors.

Based on the results of the noise assessment no noise control measures are required for

the long-term operation of the Site.

11.8 ODOUR CONTROL

In general, landfills have the potential to emit two types of odours: refuse odours and

landfill gas odours. Refuse odour is generated by recently disposed waste and is

controllable by the application of daily cover soil. Landfill gas odour is generated

during the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste material.

Waste odours will be managed by minimizing the active working face and applying

daily cover. Landfill gas odours will be managed by utilizing interim cover on inactive

areas of the landfill that have not reached final contours and progressively closing

31807 (13) 65 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


portions of the landfill as they reach final contours. Closing areas will include

construction of final cover and the establishment of vegetation.

The 2003 Annual Report (Ince, 2004) noted that some complaints concerning nuisance

odours from the Site were received by the Municipality during 2003. These complaints

were usually related to the burning of wood waste. The Municipality ceased burning

wood and is now chipping this material for on-Site use (Ince, 2005).

Should odours become a problem at the Site an investigation into the problem will be

required. The investigation will address such items as gas generation rates, odour

problem areas around the Site, and potential methods to reduce odours, such as gas

collection systems.

11.9 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND IMPACT

The low volume of vehicular traffic at the Site has not resulted in significant traffic

impacts. The Existing Site is located in a relatively unpopulated area of the Municipality

and the total Site related traffic represents a small percent of total traffic using

McDougall Road. Under long-term operation of the Site, it is anticipated that there will

be no significant increase in the volume of truck traffic historically experienced to the

Site.

Access to the Site will continue to be via the main entrance off of McDougall Road. All

vehicular entrance to the Site is controlled at the main access gate.

McDougall Road has an asphalt surface and provides good access to the Site. The main

Site access road is granular surface and therefore minimizes the tracking of mud from

vehicles leaving the Site, during wet weather operations, onto McDougall Road.

However, should conditions warrant, then the landfill operator will arrange for

McDougall Road to be cleaned in the vicinity of the Site entrance, on an as required

basis.

Traffic control signs including Stop and All Vehicle Report to Office are posted in

appropriate locations throughout the Site. The need for additional signage will be

reviewed from time to time by landfill staff for adequacy and implementation as

required.

31807 (13) 66 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


11.10 VECTOR AND VERMIN CONTROL

The terms vector and vermin refer to objectionable insects, rodents, and birds that may

establish a habitat at the landfill. Common vector and vermin include flies, rats, and

gulls. The impact of these species is of concern from both a health and aesthetic

perspective. Landfill operations are required to control vector and vermin on the Site.

According to landfill personnel, vector and vermin is not problematic at the landfill.

Additionally, no complaints have been received by landfill personnel, with respect to the

control of vector and vermin.

However, should vector and vermin become problematic then the following control

measures will be taken:

• should an outbreak of flies occur at the Site, an insect exterminator will be contracted

to control the population on an as required basis;

• should rodents come to inhabit the Site, then extermination will be conducted by a

licensed exterminator on an as required basis; and

• should the presence of gulls become problematic at the Site, measures would

undertaken to control and discourage them. The more frequent application of waste

cover soil will assist in mitigating the presence of gulls.

11.11 SCAVENGING

Scavenging of deposited and stockpiled waste is prohibited at the Site. Segregation of

recyclable and recoverable materials from the incoming waste stream will be conducted

by landfill personnel. These materials will be removed off-Site for subsequent recycling

on an as required basis.

11.12 WINTER AND WET WEATHER OPERATION

Winter operations require advance planning for Site preparation, snow removal, and the

stockpiling and storage of cover material.

Many operational problems occur as a direct result of failure to prepare an adequate

disposal area in advance of winter. An area sufficient to hold more than the expected

volume of waste will be prepared in advance. In addition, stockpiles of cover material

31807 (13) 67 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


and areas for stockpiling snow will be provided and placed prior to the onset of winter.

Snow fences to minimize and control snow drifting will be installed on an as required

basis.

Under extremely wet weather conditions, the disposal operations may be temporarily

relocated to a drier working area to accommodate vehicular traffic at the working face.

On-Site equipment required to be used for continued landfill operations during rainfall

events, will be provided with closed cabs.

Site roadways will be maintained in a passable condition during wet weather

conditions. Secondary haul roads to the active landfill area will be located so as to

ensure continuous access to the active face during wet weather conditions. Should

washouts of the Site roadways occur due to rainfall events, then the roadways will be

reconstructed in a timely fashion and in a manner consistent with the design presented

in this report.

11.13 RECEIPT, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS

Asbestos may be accepted at the Site for disposal in accordance with Section 17 of the

General - Waste Management Regulation, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 347. The protocols for the

handling and disposal of asbestos waste at the Site are summarized below.

Receipt

Asbestos waste will not be accepted for disposal at the Site unless the landfill operator

has received prior notification as to its anticipated time of arrival. The asbestos waste is

to be transported to the Site in rigid, impermeable, sealed containers of sufficient

strength to accommodate the weight and nature of the waste. Where the container is in

a cardboard box, the waste shall be sealed in a 6-mil polyethylene bag placed within the

box. Every container received at the Site will be free from punctures, tears, or leaks, and

the exterior surface of the container free from asbestos waste, or it will not be accepted

for disposal.

Asbestos waste will only be accepted at the Site if the container is displayed with large,

legible letters that contrast in colour with the background, the word "CAUTION" in

letters not less than 10 centimetres in height and the words:

31807 (13) 68 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


"CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBRES

Avoid Creating Dust and Spillage

Asbestos May be Harmful to Your Health

Wear Approved Protective Equipment"

Unloading

During unloading, any asbestos waste that is loose or in a container that is punctured,

broken, or leaking shall be packaged, immediately on discovery, in a 6-mil polyethylene

bag. All unloading activities will be carried out in such a manner to prevent the

airborne discharge of asbestos and so that no loose asbestos or punctured, broken, or

leaking containers of asbestos waste are landfilled.

Disposal

Asbestos waste will only be deposited at locations in the landfill area which have been

adapted for the purpose of receiving asbestos waste. Disposal of asbestos waste will

only be conducted under direct supervision by the landfill operator or a person

designated by the operator for that purpose and the person supervising is not also

operating machinery or the truck involved.

Where asbestos waste is deposited, a minimum depth of 1.25 metres of waste or cover

material will be placed over the deposited asbestos waste in such a manner that direct

contact with compaction equipment or other equipment operating on Site is prevented.

All personnel involved in the supervision, handling, and disposal of asbestos waste at

the Site will have the appropriate WHMIS training and will wear suitable protective

clothing and personal respiratory equipment while so doing. Protective clothing that

has been or is suspected of having been in contact with asbestos waste will be changed

at the location of the exposure and either property disposed of as an asbestos waste or

washed at the end of the working day. Disposable protective clothing will not be

reused.

Disposal activities will incorporate all precautions necessary to prevent asbestos waste

from becoming airborne.

The landfill operator will document and maintain records of the disposal locations of all

asbestos waste received at the Site. This documentation will include the approximate

elevation and location of disposal, referenced to permanent Site features, and the

approximate quantity of asbestos that was disposed.

31807 (13) 69 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


11.14 CLEAN OR INERT FILL ACCEPTANCE

Prior to acceptance of any clean/inert fill, the landfill operator will screen the materials

to determine and record its source, type, quantity, and historical land use. In addition,

the landfill operator will conduct a visual and olfactory inspection of the material to

determine if contaminants are present.

Should clean/inert fill received at the Site be suspected as being contaminated, then the

generator will be requested to complete a soil analysis on a representative sample(s) of

the material prior to acceptance. The sample(s) will be required to be analyzed at an

accredited laboratory for selected parameters as determined from review of the source

and historical land use associated with the material. As a minimum, the analysis will be

completed for selected metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (Fractions F1 to F4). The

analytical results will be compared to the applicable soil criteria set forth in the Soil,

Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the EPA (MOE, March

2004) for industrial/commercial/community land use in a potable groundwater

condition (Table 2). Soil containing parameters in excess of these criteria will not be

accepted as clean or inert fill. However, the waste material may be redirected for

disposal in the landfill area as waste cover soil, should the material conform to the

requirements of the General – Waste Management Regulation, R.R.O 1990, Regulation

347 of the Environmental Protection Act.

31807 (13) 70 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


12.0 SITE MONITORING

12.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Water quality is monitored as outlined in Schedules B and C of the Provisional

September 26, 2006 Amendment to Certificate of Approval No. A522101. The Expansion

Cell Incremental Impact Assessment Report (CRA, May 2006) also proposed additional

monitoring locations in the vicinity of the Expansion Cell.

As such, the proposed monitoring program for the Site will include 27 groundwater

monitoring locations, 4 private well monitoring locations, 10 surface water locations, one

leachate sample, and two groundwater treatment samples. All locations will be sampled

on a semi-annual or quarterly basis with the exception of one residential well, which is

sampled annually. The collected samples are analysed for a variety of general

chemistry, metal and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

In additional to water quality samples, hydraulic monitoring (water level) and quality

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) sample collection and analysis are also carried out

at each sampling event. A list of all the monitoring locations, sampling frequency of

sample collection and parameter list for sample analysis is provided on Table 12.1. A list

of the specific parameters analyzed for each list of parameters is provided in Table 12.2.

12.2 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROTOCOLS

In order to ensure that representative water quality samples are obtained from the Site

and that no contamination of the samples occurs, strict sampling protocols should be

followed during the monitoring events. These protocols are summarized in

Appendix K.

12.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

All monitoring wells should be fully developed prior to sampling using dedicated

Waterra foot valve and polyethylene tubing until generally a minimum of three

standing water volumes in each well is purged. Following recovery of the wells,

samples should be collected with the dedicated valves and tubing. Water quality

sampling protocols should be followed during sampling.

31807 (13) 71 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


A Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program involving the collection and

analysis of field duplicates and field blanks, as well as the evaluation of standard

laboratory quality control samples and procedures, will be conducted for the surface

water and groundwater samples collected as part of the monitoring program.

12.4 ANNUAL MONITORING AND PROGRESS REPORTING

An Annual Monitoring and Progress Report will be prepared for the Site and submitted

to the District Office of the MOE. The operations and monitoring information will be

prepared by a qualified consultant, retained for the duration of the reporting year. The

consultant will oversee the development of the Site and provide guidance with regard to

the overall operation of the Site.

The annual progress reports will discuss, at a minimum, the following:

• the results and interpretive analysis of the all leachate, groundwater, surface water,

monitoring, including an assessment of the need to amend the monitoring program;

• an assessment of the operation and performance of all engineered facilities, the need

to amend the design or operation of the Site, and the adequacy of and need to

implement the contingency plans;

Site plans showing the existing contours of the Site, areas of landfilling operations

during the reporting period, areas of intended operation during the next reporting

period, areas of excavations during the reporting period, the progress of final cover

and intermediate cover application, previously existing Site facilities, facilities

installed during the reporting period, and Site preparations and facilities planned for

installation during the next reporting period;

• calculations of volume of waste, daily and intermediate cover, and final cover

deposited or placed at the Site during the reporting period and a calculation of the

total volume of Site capacity used during the reporting period;

• a calculation of the remaining capacity of the Site and an estimate of the remaining

Site life;

• a summary of the quantity of any leachate removed, or treated and discharged, from

the Site during each operating week;

• a summary of the monthly, maximum daily and total annual tonnage of waste

received at the Site;

• a summary of any public complaints received by the owner and the responses made;

and

31807 (13) 72 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


• a discussion of any operational problems encountered at the Site and corrective

actions taken.

31807 (13) 73 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


All of Which is Respectfully Submitted,

CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES

Christine Robertson, C.E.T.

Gregory D. Ferraro, P. Eng.

31807 (13) 74 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES


REFERENCES

1. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., 2006. Expansion Cell Incremental Impact

Assessment. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall, ON.

2. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., May 2006. Existing Site Compliance Plan

Summary Report. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall, ON.

3. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., July 2005. Technical Design Brief – Iron

Reduction Treatment System. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall,

ON.

4. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., June 2005. Environmental Assessment for One

or More Waste Disposal Solutions for the Municipality of McDougall and Other

Area Municipalities. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall, ON.

5. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., June 2005. Short-Term Landfill Capacity

Increase Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A5522101. McDougall Landfill Site,

Municipality of McDougall, ON.

6. M. K. Ince and Associates Ltd., March 2005. Development, Operations, and

Monitoring 2004 Annual Report. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of

McDougall, ON.

7. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., 2003. Leachate Treatment System Conceptual

Design Report. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall, ON.

8. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd., February 2003. Engineering/Planning

Evaluation and Cost Assessments. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of

McDougall, ON.

9. Henderson-Paddon Environmental Inc., 1995. Characterization of Possible Off-site

Leachate Paths & Optimum Purge Well Locations. McDougall Landfill Site,

Municipality of McDougall, ON.

10. Henderson-Paddon Environmental Inc., 1993. Containment Cell and Landfill

Remediation. McDougall Landfill Site, Municipality of McDougall, ON.

11. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1998. Landfill Standards, A Guideline on the

Regulatory and Approval Requirements for New and Expanding Landfill Sites.

31807 (13) 75 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES

More magazines by this user